Uri’s Muslim Brothers

About one year ago Uri Avnery , the son of Irgun terrorist group wrote:
“What will happen if hundreds of thousands of Palestinians march one day to the Separation Wall and pull it down? What if a quarter of a million Palestinian refugees in Lebanon gather on our Northern border? What if masses of people assemble in Manara Square in Ramallah and Town Hall Square in Nablus and confront the Israeli troops? Mr. Avnery asks. “Perhaps this will not happen tomorrow or the day after. But it most certainly will happen – unless we make peace while we still canAnd it hapenned after 6 months. Hw witnessed Return in Practice

URI imagined “posters condemning Binyamin al-Assad and Bashar Netanyahu.”

But why Uri is putting “Binyamin al-Assad and Bashar Netanyahu.” in the same Basket?
Though at odds, Both threatens URI’s light calorie zionist project (Two state solution).
Why Uri imagined posters condemning Bashar al-Assad? Because Syria is the last Arab fort.

Peace with the Palestinians is no longer a luxury. It is an absolute necessity. Peace now, peace quickly.’ Uri Avnery.

.Now, URI AVNERY is stuck in Palestine, Abbas, the “plucked chicken” he saw at UN soaring into the sky has landed and Ismael Haneya is now souring into the sky, in cairo, Tunis, Turkey and Qatar.

The low calorie zionist turned into polising MB, and reconciliation with his Islamic neighbors.

Moses was also heavy of the ears… when God told him to take his people to Canada, he took his people to Canaan, spending the prescribed 40 years – just long enough to reach Vancouver – wandering hither and thither in the Sinai desert.” he wrote.

“If we want Israel to exist and flourish in a region that will for a long time be governed by democratically elected Islamist parties, we would do well to welcome them now as brothers, congratulate them on their victories and work for peace and conciliation with elected Islamists in Egypt and the other Arab states, including Palestine. We must certainly resist the temptation to push the Americans into supporting another military dictatorship in Egypt, Syria and elsewhere. Let’s choose the future, not the past.” he concluded.

I would assure Uri, neither your Brothers of America, nor another miltary dictatorship will gurantee the existance and flourish of the zionist entity. “Israel” is doomed

Unlike Moses, you are not heavy of the mouth and heavy of the tongue, you are heavy of the ears.
Clear your ears, and and listen to Helen Thomas,

It is not too late URI, cut your 64 years wandering hither and thither in the “Promised Land”, in three hours you may reach Germany your birth place.

Israeli peace group Gush Shalom logoEVERYBODY KNOWS by now why we are stuck in Palestine.

When God instructed Moses to plead with Pharaoh to let his people go, Moses told him that he was unfit for the job because “I am slow of speech and of a slow tongue” (Exodus 4:10).

Israeli peace group Gush Shalom logo
Actually, in the Hebrew original, Moses told God that he was “heavy of the mouth and heavy of the tongue”. He should have told Him that he was also heavy of the ears. So when God told him to take his people to Canada, he took his people to Canaan, spending the prescribed 40 years – just long enough to reach Vancouver – wandering hither and thither in the Sinai desert.

So here we are, in Canaan, surrounded by Muslims.

FOR DECADES, my friends and I have warned that if we dither in making peace, the nature of the conflict will change. I myself have written dozens of times that if our conflict is transformed from a national to a religious struggle, everything will change for the worse.

The Zionist-Arab struggle started as a clash between two great national movements, which were born more or less at the same time as offshoots of the new European nationalism.

Almost all the early Zionists were convinced atheists, inspired (and pushed out) by the European nationalist movements. They used religious symbols quite cynically – to mobilize the Jews and as a propaganda tool for the others.
The Arab resistance to the Zionist settlement was basically secular and nationalist, too. It was a part of the rising wave of nationalism throughout the Arab world. True, the leader of the Palestinian resistance was Hadj Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, but he was both a national and a religious leader, using religious motives to reinforce the national ones.
National leaders are supposed to be rational. They make war and they make peace. When it suits them, they compromise. They talk to each other.
Religious conflicts are quite different. When God is inserted into the matter, everything becomes more extreme. God may be compassionate and loving, but His adherents are generally not. God and compromise don’t go well together. Especially not in the holy land of Canaan.
THE RELIGIONALIZATION (if a Hebrew-speaking Israeli be allowed to coin an English word) of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict started on both sides.
Years ago, the historian Karen Armstrong, a former nun, wrote a thought-provoking book (“The Battle for God”) about religious fundamentalism. She put her finger on an astonishing fact: Christian, Jewish and Islamic fundamentalist movements were very much alike.
Delving into the history of fundamentalist movements in the US, Israel, Egypt and Iran, she discovered that they were born at the same time and underwent the same stages. Since there is very little similarity between the four countries and the four societies, not to mention the three religions, this is a remarkable fact.
The inevitable conclusion is that there is something in the Zeitgeist of our time which encourages such ideas, something not anchored in the remote past, which is glorified by the fundamentalists, but in the present.
IN ISRAEL, it started on the morrow of the 1967 war, when the Army Chief Rabbi, Shlomo Goren, went to the newly “liberated” Western Wall and blew his Shofar (religious ram’s horn). Yeshayahu Leibowitz called him “the Clown with the shofar”, but throughout the country it evoked a resounding echo.
Before the Six Days, the religious wing of Zionism was the stepchild of the movement. For many of us, religion was a tolerated superstition, looked down upon, used by politicians for reasons of expediency.
The overwhelming victory of the Israeli army in that war looked like divine intervention, and the religious youth sprang into life. It was like the fulfillment of Psalm 118 (22): “The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.” The pent-up energies of the religious sector, nursed for years in their separate ultra-nationalist schools, burst out.
The result was the settlers’ movement. They raced to occupy every hilltop in the occupied territories. True, many settlers went there to build their dream villas on stolen Arab land and enjoy the ultimate “quality of life”. But at the core of the enterprise are the fundamentalist fanatics, who are ready to live harsh and dangerous lives, because (as the Crusaders used to shout) “God Wills It!”.
The whole raison d’être of the settlements is to drive the Arabs out of the country and turn the whole land of Canaan into a Jewish state. In the meantime their shock troops carry out pogroms against their Arab “neighbors” and burn their mosques.
These fundamentalists now have a huge influence on our government’s policy, and their impact is growing. For example: for months now, the country has been ablaze after the Supreme Court decreed that 5 (five!) houses in Bet El settlement must be demolished, because they were built on private Arab land. In a desperate effort to prevent riots, Binyamin Netanyahu has promised to build in their stead 850 (eight hundred and fifty!) new houses in the occupied territories. Such things happen all the time.
But let there be no mistake: after the cleansing of the country of non-Jews, the next step would be to turn Israel into a “halakha state” – a country governed by religious law, with the abolition of all democratically enacted secular laws that do not conform to the word of God and His rabbis.

SUBSTITUTE THE word “shariah” for “halakha” – both mean religious law – and you have the dream of Muslim fundamentalists. Both laws, by the way, are remarkably similar. And both cover all spheres of life, individual and collective.

Since the start of the Arab Spring, the fledgling Arab democracy has brought Muslim fundamentalists to the fore. Actually, that started even before, when Hamas (an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood) won the democratic, internationally monitored elections in Palestine. However, the resulting Palestinian government was destroyed by the Israeli leadership and its subservient US and European subcontractors.

Last week’s apparent victory of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Egyptian presidential elections was a landmark. After similar victories in Tunisia and the events in Libya, Yemen and Syria, it is clear that Arab citizens everywhere favor the Muslim Brotherhood and similar parties.

The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928, is an old established party which has earned much respect with its steadfastness in the face of recurrent persecution, torture, mass arrests and occasional executions. Its leaders are untainted by the prevalent corruption, and admired for their commitment to social work.

The West is haunted by medieval ideas about the horrible Saracens. The Muslim Brotherhood inspires terror. It is conceived as a fearsome, murderous, secret sect, out to destroy Israel and the West. Of course, practically no one has taken the trouble to study the history of this movement in Egypt and elsewhere. Actually, it could not be further removed from this parody.

The Brotherhood has always been a moderate party, though they almost always had a more extreme wing. Whenever possible, they tried to accommodate the successive Egyptian dictators – Abd-al-Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak – though all of these tried to eradicate them. [Nasser and American brothers (Must see)]
The Brotherhood is first and foremost an Arab and Egyptian party, deeply embedded in Egyptian history. Though they would probably deny it, I would say – judging from their history – that they are more Arab and more Egyptian than fundamentalist. They certainly have never been fanatical.

During their 84 years, they have seen many ups and downs. But mostly, their outstanding quality has been pragmatism, coupled with adherence to the principles of their religion. It is this pragmatism that also characterizes their behavior during the last year and a half, which – so its seems – caused quite a number of voters who are not particularly religious to prefer them to the secular candidate who is tainted by his connection with the corrupt and repressive former regime.
This also determines their attitude towards Israel. Palestine is constantly on their mind – but that is true of all Egyptians. Their conscience is troubled by the feeling that at Camp David, Anwar Sadat betrayed the Palestinians. Or, worse, that the devious Jew, Menachem Begin, tricked Sadat into signing a document that did not say what Sadat thought it said. It is not the Brothers that caused the Egyptians who greeted us enthusiastically, the first Israelis to visit their country, to turn against us.
Throughout the heated election campaigns – four in a year – the Brotherhood has not demanded the abrogation of the peace agreement with Israel. Their attitude seems to be as pragmatic as ever.
ALL OUR neighbors are turning, slowly but surely, Islamic.
That is not the end of the world. But it surely compels us, for the first time, to try to understand Islam and the Muslims.
For centuries, Islam and Judaism had a close and mutually beneficial relationship. The Jewish sages in Muslim Spain, the great Maimonides and many other prominent Jews were close to Islamic culture and wrote some of their works in Arabic. There is certainly nothing in the two religions that precludes cooperation between them. (Which, alas, is not true for Christianity, which could not tolerate the Jews.)

If we want Israel to exist and flourish in a region that will for a long time be governed by democratically elected Islamist parties, we would do well to welcome them now as brothers, congratulate them on their victories and work for peace and conciliation with elected Islamists in Egypt and the other Arab states, including Palestine. We must certainly resist the temptation to push the Americans into supporting another military dictatorship in Egypt, Syria and elsewhere. Let’s choose the future, not the past.

Unless we prefer to pack up and head for Canada, after all.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

A bird’s eye view of Zionism’s and Israel’s strategic aim

By Uri Avnery

26 May 2012

”In a bird’s eye view, the Zionist-Israeli policy looks like a river (SNAKE) striving towards the sea. When it meets an obstacle, it goes around it. The path deviates to the right and to the left, sometimes even going backwards. But it perseveres with a wondrous determination towards its goal.

“The guiding principle was to accept every compromise that gives us what we can get at any stage, but never let the final aim out of our sight.
“This policy allows us to compromise about everything, except one: an Arab Palestinian state that would confirm the existence of an Arab Palestinian people.” (Uri Avnery)
On 15 May, the anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel, its Arab citizens observed a day of mourning for the victims of the Nakba (Catastrophe) – the mass exodus of half the Palestinian people from the territory which became Israel.
Like every year, this aroused much fury. Tel Aviv University allowed Arab students to hold a meeting, which was attacked by ultra-right Jewish students. Haifa University forbade the meeting altogether.
Some years ago the Knesset debated a Nakba Law that would have sent commemorators to prison for three years. This was later moderated to the withdrawal of government funds from institutions that mention the Nakba.

Nakba denial

“The ‘only democracy’ in the Middle East may well be the only democracy in the world that forbids its citizens to remember a historical event. Forgetting is a national duty.”
The “only democracy” in the Middle East may well be the only democracy in the world that forbids its citizens to remember a historical event. Forgetting is a national duty.
The trouble is, it’s hard to forget the history of the “Palestinian issue”, because it dominates our life. Sixty-five years after the foundation of Israel, half the news in our media concern this one issue, directly or indirectly…
The founding fathers of Zionism adopted the slogan “a land without a people for a people without a land” (coined much earlier by a British Christian Zionist). They believed the “promised land” to be empty. They knew, of course, that there were some people in the country, but the Zionists were Europeans, and for Europeans at the end of the 19th century, the heyday of imperialism and colonialism, coloured people – brown, black, yellow, red or whatever – did not count as people.

When Theodor Herzl put forward the idea of a Jewish state, he was not thinking about Palestine but about an area in Argentina. He intended to empty this area of all its native population – but only after they had killed all the snakes and dangerous beasts.

In his book Der Judenstaat [The Jewish State] there is no mention of Arabs – and not by accident. When Herzl wrote it, he was not yet thinking about this country. The country appears in the book only in a tiny chapter added at the last moment, titled “Palestine or Argentina?”

Therefore Herzl did not speak about evicting the Palestinian population. This would have been impossible anyway, since Herzl was asking the Ottoman sultan for a charter for Palestine. The sultan was a caliph, the spiritual head of all the world’s Muslims. Herzl was too cautious to bring this subject up.

”Total opposition to the creation of a Palestinian state – at any time, anywhere in the country, at all costs”

This explains the otherwise curious fact: the Zionist movement has never given a clear answer to its most basic question: how to create a Jewish state in a country inhabited by another people. This question has remained unresolved to this very day.

“The main effort of the Zionist/Israeli movement is to achieve a Jewish state in all of Eretz Israel – the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. In other words, the prevention of an Arab Palestinian state.”

But only seemingly. Hidden somewhere underneath it all, on the fringes of the collective consciousness, Zionism always had an answer. It is so self-evident, that there was no need to think about it. Only few had the courage to express it openly. It is imprinted on the “genetic code” of the Zionist movement, so to speak, and its daughter, the state of Israel.

This code says: a Jewish state in all the land of Israel. And therefore: total opposition to the creation of a Palestinian state – at any time, anywhere in the country, at all costs.

When a strategist plans a war, he first of all defines its aim. That is the main effort. Every other effort must be considered accordingly. If it supports the main effort, it is acceptable. If it hurts the main effort, it must be rejected.

The main effort of the Zionist/Israeli movement is to achieve a Jewish state in all of Eretz Israel – the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. In other words, the prevention of an Arab Palestinian state.

When one grasps this, all the events of the last 115 years make sense. All the twists and turns, all the seeming contradictions and deviations, all the curious-looking decisions make perfect sense.

In a bird’s eye view, the Zionist-Israeli policy looks like a river striving towards the sea. When it meets an obstacle, it goes around it. The path deviates to the right and to the left, sometimes even going backwards. But it perseveres with a wondrous determination towards its goal.

The guiding principle was to accept every compromise that gives us what we can get at any stage, but never let the final aim out of our sight.

This policy allows us to compromise about everything, except one: an Arab Palestinian state that would confirm the existence of an Arab Palestinian people.

All Israeli governments have fought this idea with all available means. In this respect, there was no difference between David Ben-Gurion, who had a secret agreement with King Abdullah of Jordan to obstruct the setting up of the Palestinian state decreed by the UN General Assembly’s 1947 resolution, and Menachem Begin, who made a separate peace with Anwar Sadat in order to get Egypt out of the Israeli-Palestinian war.
Not to mention Golda Meir’s famous dictum: “There is no such thing as a Palestinian people.” Thousands of other decisions by successive Israeli governments have followed the same logic.

The only exception may be the Oslo agreement – which also did not mention a Palestinian state. After signing it, Yitzhak Rabin did not rush forwards to create such a state. Instead, he stopped in his tracks as if stunned by his own audacity. He hesitated, dithered, until the inevitable Zionist counterattack gathered momentum and put an end to his effort –- and his life

The present struggle over the settlements is an integral part of this process. The main aim of the settlers is to make a Palestinian state impossible. All Israeli governments have supported them, openly or covertly. They are, of course, illegal under international law, but many of them are also illegal under Israeli law. These are variously called “illegal”, “unlawful”, “unpermitted” and so forth. Israel’s august Supreme Court has ordered the removal of several of them and seen its rulings ignored by the government.

The settlers assert that not a single settlement has been set up without secret government consent. And indeed, all the “unlawful” settlements have been connected at once to the water and electricity grids, special new roads have been built for them and the army has rushed to defend them – indeed the Israel Defence Forces have long ago become the Settlements Defense Forces. Lawyers and shysters galore have been employed to expropriate huge tracts of Palestinian land.
One famous woman lawyer discovered a forgotten Ottoman law which says that if you shout from the edge of a village, all the land where the shout cannot be heard belongs to the sultan. Since the Israeli government is the heir of the Jordanian government, which was the heir of the sultan, this land belongs to the Israeli government, which turns it over to the settlers. (This is not a joke!)

While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems in abeyance and “nothing happens”, it is really going on with full force in the only battlefield that matters: the settlement enterprise. Everything else is marginal, like the awesome prospect of an Israeli attack on Iran. As I have been saying all along, that will never happen. It is a part of the effort to divert attention from the two-state solution, the only peaceful solution there is.

Ethnic cleansing

Where is the negation of the Palestinian state leading to?

Logically, it can only lead to an apartheid state in the entire country between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. In the long run, that would be untenable, leading to an Arab-majority “bi-national” state, which would be totally unacceptable to almost all Israeli Jews. So what is left?

The only conceivable solution would be transfer of all the Arabs to the other side of the Jordan. In some ultra-right circles, this is openly talked about. The Jordanian monarch is incensed by it .

Population transfer already happened in 1948… But 1948 is long gone. The world has changed. What was tolerated from post-Holocaust brave little Israel would not be tolerated tomorrow from mighty, arrogant Israel… Today it is a pipe-dream – like similar dreams on the other side that Israel would somehow disappear from the map. (It will Mr. Settler)
It has often been said that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a clash between an unstoppable force and an immovable object. This will dominate our lives and the lives of generations to come.

Unless we do something that looks almost impossible: to change the main effort, the historic direction of our state. Substitute for it a new national aim: peace and coexistence…

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

The Unified Settler Party


The Case Of Uri Avnery
I don’t usually link to Uri Avnery, as he is a horrible lite Zionist, but he has done an excellent job of summarizing the recent politics of Israel: “The Netanyahu-Mofaz Pact“. Israel has finally reached its inevitable finish of being run by a pure, united, and completely dominant, Unified Settler Party. The Unified Settler Party is dedicated to the single issue of building Greater Israel (by, of course, killing people and stealing their land). The joke is that the only way they could reach this blessed point is to remove the parties overtly working for the interests of the settlers, whose political control, through holding the balance of power in Bibi’s coalition, was actually making it harder for Bibi to work for settler interests.

Don’t be fooled that this has anything whatsoever to do with an Israeli attack on Iran (excuse me while I laugh yet again). Israel still can’t do it, not technically and certainly not politically while the US is in the middle of negotiations with Iran which are being sold as going well.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Poison in the Cake

The typical Zionist hasbara method of systematic attempt to discredit any genuine Resistance Mass Movement, is brilliantly exposed by Jonathan Azaziah thorough analysis of the case of Uri-Avnery, allegedly a “humanist” and “peace activist”. Not surprisingly, the same method and tactics are used by another UK “humanist” and “peace activists”. In this case Tony Greenstein takes it upon himself to discredit the Islamic Resistance Mass Movement which was also elected by majority Palestinian into government in 2006.

After a long campaign along with his partisans “Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods” JBIG, Mr. Greenstein managed recently to insert a sugar coated motion that would act as a diversion of PSC and lead it away from total dedication of supporting the oppressed Palestinians into fighting side battles of ADL and BOD of British Jews type.

Hence they have managed to steer the solidarity movement away from prime aims of marching to help Palestinians in their struggle of Liberation, into getting stuck with fighting alleged “anti-Semitism” and dealing with accusations without proof, endless debates and in-fights that would only weaken, distract and waste valuable time of the movement. Altogether, these amount to dilatory tactics allowing the Zionists to brutally finalize their Jewish national project.

Under the pretext of fighting anti-Semitism and racism, the hijackers aim to obfuscate and cover up any study or scrutiny of Jewish supremacy and racism which was not even mentioned in the motion about racism, presented by JBIG and adopted by PSC.

Under the pretext of fighting racism and anti-Semitism the goal of the hijackers is to block and prevent serious investigation of global Jewish-Zionist networks and organizations in their respective Jewish communities world wide, and their role in supporting, defending and protecting the criminal Zionist entity.

Under the pretext of the uniqueness and exceptionality of Jewish suffering, they aim to justify the need of the perpetual existence of a “state for the Jews”, a “homeland for the Jewish people” in Palestine, an “Israel”, a “safe-haven” where the “eternally persecuted” Jews can finally call “home”, where they can exercise their “sovereign rights” to be a “nation”; be it as it may, an invented one, and be it as it may at the expense of another nation and the almost total extermination and dispossession of another people through wars of conquest and genocide. They call their omnibous solution, a Secular state for ALL its citizens. Hence preparing the ground of the soft, cultural, factual and permanent TAKE OVER of Palestine (early Zionists called that type of soft takeover, Cultural Zionism).

Under the pretext of the uniqueness and exceptionality of Jewish suffering, our detractors want to impose on Palestinians to give up their rights to resist and defend themselves, they want Palestinians to abandon the idea of reinstatement of their stolen land, and to impose on them the acceptance of sharing permanently their land with those who oppressed and dispossessed them for decades, those who have systematically violated, desecrated and destroyed the beloved land of Palestine.

This obfuscation, control, manipulation and exclusion of many activists including Palestinians is nothing but a tool that would only help the finalization of the Zionist project with all its abhorrent criminality, lunacy and cultural supremacy, all while clothing it with a softer -yet no less domineering, no less supremacist, no less ugly face.

The finalization of the Zionist project basically means securing the foreign Jewish-Zionist implant in someone else’s land.

I, an exiled for 45 years, and with me millions of Palestinians either exiled or languishing under the iron fist of an illegitimate occupation, we refuse to give up our sovereign right to fully Liberate our Homeland from this malevolent atrocious occupation.

Of course the likes of Greenstein and co, would like the world along with PSC members to believe that there is absolutely no Jewish link, and there is absolutely no Jewish connection or dimension in the catastrophe that befell upon Palestine!

Non of the occupiers is Jewish;
Non of the IDF is Jewish;
Non of the settlers is Jewish;
Non of their supporters outside Palestine is Jewish;
Zionism is a not a Jewish movement;
The “promised land” is a not a Jewish concept;
Even “Ha Torah Ha’Melech” Is a Zionist and not a Jewish book.

If a Zionist is a Jew, it is anti-Semitic to mention it; if an anti-Zionist is a Jew, it is mandatory to point it out.” Gill Kaffash

Of course according to our detractors this sentence is “anti-Semitic” !



The image above of “Ha’Torah Ha’Melech” was posted on Greenstein’s blog. The book was presented as a “Zionist” Orthodox book. When I pointed out to a Jewish friend the hypocrisy, the lie and deliberate falsification in such representation, and when I asked her: “since when Torah, and Talmud and such books have become Zionist books?”, mysteriously, a “damage-control”, “counter-productive” little birdy whispered something into Mr Greenstein’s ear, who immediately replaced the previous image with this one:

The Case Of Uri Avnery II: Hasbara, Supremacism And The Future Of Solidarity

by Jonathan Azaziah

My PhotoPrelude: In the first part of this series, Uri Avnery was lambasted for his crimes against the Palestinian people and his “Shukran, Israel” hitpiece on Islamic Resistance was deconstructed with a barrage of unequivocal facts, burying the Zionist lies forever. This part, the series finale, will deal with Avnery’s vomit-inducing positions on Obama, Libya and Syria, as well as dive deep into the chaos currently being experienced by a weakened and infiltrated International Palestine Solidarity Movement. It will conclude with a call for real revolution and a historic pledge to fully liberate Palestine and all of humanity once and for all…

NATO supporter and Zionist warmonger Uri Avnery; seen here as a young ethnic cleanser in the ‘Israeli’ occupation army.

Avnery Loves Obama and NATO; Praises Libya Genocide and Wants The Same For Syria

It is mind-boggling that an ‘anti-war, pro-peace’ activist would take a liking to any candidate of the American presidency, the figurehead of a military empire that has been used to fight one war after another for international Zionism since World War I, but that is exactly what Uri Avnery has done. Six months prior to Barack Obama being selected as chief puppet of the Zionist entity in the United States, Uri Avnery wrote a piece entitled “Two Americas” offering his support to Obama, praising him for representing “hope” and “optimism” and the “America of the Declaration of Independence.” Stunningly, Avnery also attempted to portray Obama as someone who was under attack from the American Jewish leadership in the run-up to his selection and who was the “opposite in almost every respect” of Bush (49). Laughable, really.

War criminal Barack Obama’s very political
existence was birthed by Zionist Jewry.

Some more reminders for Avnery: Obama is Zionist to the root. Powerful Jewish-Zionist kingmakers like Abner Mikva, Joel Sprayregen, Newton Minow, Bettylu Saltzman of the dynastic Saltzman family, Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf, Lester Crown of the vastly wealthy Crown household and Penny Pritzker of the Pritzker dynasty nurtured his rise to political stardom in Chicago (50). As early as 2002, because of all of the Jewish money and Zionist brainwashing that he willingly accepted to drown in, Obama was capitulating to Zionism and had taken the AIPAC line on everything pertaining to Palestine (51). Since ascending to the presidency, Obama has been the typical American sugardaddy for the genocidal Jewish ‘state’, washing it with more billions in military aid than any administration in US history, supporting the criminal Zionist siege against the starving Palestinian people of Gaza, increasing American-‘Israeli’ military cooperation, defending the nuclear ambiguity of ‘Israel’ and giving billions more to ‘Israeli’ weapons manufactures and environmental firms that habitually abuse Palestinian human rights (52).

Additionally, Obama has accumulated a laundry list of crimes against humanity to go along with his complicity in the ongoing Zionist butchery of Palestine. These crimes include increasing the aggression against occupied Somalia and occupied Afghanistan, upping the murderous drone strikes in Pakistan, butchering Iraq a bit more before “ending the occupation,” diplomatically supporting the barbarity being inflicted upon occupied Kashmir every day by the Hindutvadi regime in New Delhi, starting a drone bombing campaign against Yemen and starting a full-scale genocidal assault against Libya. Perhaps it is because of his support for Obama, that Uri Avnery endorsed the Zionist narrative of “humanitarian intervention” in Libya. Perhaps it is because he is a Zionist warmonger at heart. In his piece “Understanding The Opposition To NATO’s Intervention In Libya,” Avnery attacks those against the ravaging of another Muslim nation as people whose “hatred of the USA and of NATO was so strong, so fervent” that they couldn’t see that, “Muammar Gaddafi was the enemy of every decent person in the world. He was one of the worst tyrants in recent memory (53).” It is a tirade completely devoid of factuality.

Over one million Libyans marched for Qadhdhafi last summer and it was deliberately ignored by the Zionist media.

Avnery pitifully echoed the Zionist media by accusing Muammar Qadhdhafi of being of one of those “bloody dictators,” one of those “genocidal mass-murderers” and one of those “leaders who wage war on their own people.” Lies, lies and more lies. There isn’t a drop, not even a minuscule drop, that Qadhdhafi carried out a genocide in Libya, nor is there any evidence that there was a genocide impending. There is no evidence that Qadhdhafi was “waging war on his own people” or bombing his own people for that matter. There is no evidence of mass sexual violence fueled by Viagra and other sexual stimulants. And there is no evidence that Qadhdhafi was a “ruthless dictator squandering the great wealth of Libya,” not even close (54). Over one million Libyans hit the streets on June 17, 2011 to show their support for Qadhdhafi and condemn the inhuman terrorism of NATO; the story was nowhere to be found in the Zionist media (55). Would one million people, in a country of only 6 million, risk their lives as bombs fell on their country for a ‘tyrant’ that they cared nothing for? The question is rhetorical.

A true point of hilarity in Avnery’s hasbara piece on Libya is where he actually accuses those who slam the treasonist rebels for collaborating with NATO as “colonialists.” A racist, Zionist colonialist labeling others “colonialists.” How comedic. In true Orwellian fashion, Avnery concedes that the rebels would have gone nowhere without NATO’s bombs and also concedes that the rebels were armed and advised by NATO but still somehow insists that the “revolution” was a “Libyan victory.” Firstly, the treasonist rebels don’t speak for Libya, and secondly, the vast majority of Libyans stood with Qadhdhafi in principle and in arms against the Zionist-backed NATO aggression because of everything that Qadhdhafi did to build Libya into a gem of Africa (56).

At the behest of ‘Israel,’ Libyan leader Muammar Qadhdhafi was ruthlessly murdered by NATO and its barbarian ‘rebel’ proxies.

Thirdly, Avnery echoes more Zionist propaganda with this statement, “It is a Libyan victory, not a British or a French one.” He is attempting to portray that it was the Zionist regimes of Cameron and Sarkozy that led the way in Libya, absolving America of another massive crime. This too is brutally false. The United States indeed took the lead in Libya, with CIA on the ground from day one and Americans piloting French jets that took part in the bombing campaign (57). The heartbreaking and barbaric assassination of Muammar Qadhdhafi, which was also touted as a ‘rebel victory’, was a NATO operation from soup to nuts with America once again sitting at the head (58). There was no victory for Libyans in the annihilation of Libya. There was no victory for Libyans in the brutal murder of Muammar Qadhdhafi, who was sodomized by the “freedom fighters” before he was killed (59). There was only triumph for NATO and the power behind it.

Lastly, Avnery belittles all persons who courageously stood against the fabricated “humanitarianism” of NATO with this, “How could I support the American imperialists and the abominable NATO? Didn’t I realize that it was all about the oil?” Oil and imperialism were certainly part of the equation, as they always are, but the main reasons? Absolutely not. Libya, like Iraq before it, was insidiously bombed with ‘shock and awe’ tactics on the Jewish revenge holiday of Purim. The aggression was launched to “righteously and Judaically retaliate” against Qadhdhafi’s repeated challenges to the Zionist entity on the international stage, including, most devastatingly, him pointing out that US President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Mossad. The aggression was launched to stop Qadhdhafi’s plan of introducing a gold dinar into the African economy for oil trade, using Libya’s vast gold reserves as the starting point; this plan would have demolished international Zionism’s financial stranglehold over Africa. Qadhdhafi was already using his gold to challenge the Zionist entity’s lucrative vegetable-export hegemony in Europe (60).

The power behind the NATO aggression unleashed upon Libya is the same Zionist cabal that fomented genocide in Iraq: PNAC, repackaged as the FPI.

The same Zionist warmongers who drove US Presidents into the Balkans and Iraq, under the banner of the ‘Project for the New American Century (PNAC),’ directed Obama into Libya, under the banner of the ‘Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).’ Same Jewish supremacists, same Zionist tactics (61). The lies of “human rights violations” were generated by an organization known as UN Watch, which organized 70 “rights groups” under its umbrella to justify the NATO invasion. UN Watch is headed by a staunch Zionist named Hillel Neuer and is also closely affiliated with the American Jewish Committee, the foreign policy wing of AIPAC (62). The seeds planted by these Zionist spillers of blood, these Zionist murderers, these Zionist thieves and war criminals, blossomed into a genocidal war of unimaginable horror. The Zionist-engineered NATO aggression against Libya has left an estimated 100,000 men, women and children dead, with thousands of others, including children, gruesomely maimed and mangled by NATO’s bombs (63). This is what Uri Avnery, the ‘peace’ activist, condones.

Incredibly, Avnery closes his piece with a call for more NATO aggression and more genocide… in Syria, where the same Zionist lies used against Libya only on a more sensationalist scale are being repeated by the Zionist media to justify an invasion (64). With equal incredibility, Avnery also makes the call for world government and a world military. But this isn’t so shocking. Right here in this series, Avnery’s Jewish supremacism has been exposed and the very concept of world government is Jewish at the core. The model has already been laid out by a racist, Jewish supremacist rabbi named Michael Higger, who wrote a book entitled ‘The Jewish Utopia’ in which he envisioned a world of subhuman non-Jews ruled in utopian fashion by Jewish overlords of ‘righteousness.’ To bring about this ‘Jewish Utopia,’ the enemies of Zionism, including Iran and Syria, Russia and China, must be destroyed. Steps have already been taken by the Zionist Power Configuration to usher in this Jewish New World Order (41). Avnery, with his “peace activist” garb now torn to shreds, is simply playing his part in making sure it comes to fruition.

Conclusion: A Point of Agreement and The Advent of Real Revolution

The “peace” that Uri Avnery wants for Palestine is the same “peace” that Shimon Peres wants: none at all.

It is ironic that this essay, one which has laid waste to Uri Avnery’s positions and ideological allegiances, would come to a close in definitive agreement with something that Uri Avnery wrote. In a September 5th, 2009 piece entitled, “The Boycott Revisited (65),” the 88-year old Zionist made a keen observation regarding the Paleste Solidarity Movement and the language it uses to describe its cause. This will be addressed momentarily. From an overall standpoint, the piece itself is detestable. It is littered with supremacist anecdotes and arrogant, bizarre Zionist rants about ‘peace.’ To a Zionist, as so sharply and eloquently pointed out by thinker, activist, author and world-renowned musician Gilad Atzmon, ‘peace,’ or ‘shalom’ in Hebrew, simply means “a set of political and military maneuvers that silence the enemy of the Jewish people.” Gilad, or brother Jihad as I call him, also notes that the ‘peace’ of Zionist war criminals Ariel Sharon (real name: Ariel Scheinermann) and Shimon Peres (real name: Szymon Perski) isn’t different at all from the ‘peace’ of Uri Avnery (66).

Brother Jihad couldn’t be more spot-on and Avnery confirms this on his own in his piece. Before he indulges his readers with the flowery language of “peace, harmony and brotherhood,” and, “freedom and Palestinian sovereignty,” Avnery puts things into the proper perspective with these two telling declarations, “I am an Israeli. I am an Israeli patriot.” Patriotism in ‘Israeli’ society always translates into militarism; to be a “patriot” in the Zionist entity, one must put on an IOF uniform and be ready to defend the Jewish ‘state’ from assuredly imminent ‘holocaust,’ whether it be the imaginary Iranian nuclear threat or the stone in the hand of the Palestinian boy who just watched his father or mother get dragged away by Mistaravim thugs.

Presumably, Avnery isn’t referring to his time as an Irgun terrorist when proudly invoking his patriotism, but his time as a commando in the Givati Brigade, an IOF terrorist unit that helped carried out the Plan D ethnic cleansing of Palestine (67). Norman Podhoretz, PNAC agent, ultra-Zionist and neoconservative godfather, at an international conference of Jewish journalists in occupied Palestine in 1985, said, “The role of Jews who write in both the Jewish and general press is to defend Israel (68).” Avnery personifies this tribalism to the letter and his own words solidify it, no matter how he may try to disavow it in the future.

Which brings us to the point of agreement. Undoubtedly, Avnery was merely operating from the same Jewish supremacist plane that he always operates in, the plane in which he must defend ‘Israel’ by any means necessary, but the words still ring true nonetheless, “What really disturbs me about this {boycotting the Zionist entity’s existence} is that almost nobody in the West comes out and says clearly: Israel must be abolished. Some of the proposals, like those for a “One State” solution, sound like euphemisms. If one believes that the State of Israel should be abolished and replaced by a State of Palestine or a State of Happiness – why not say so openly?” I couldn’t agree more. Why not say so openly?

The Palestine Solidarity Movement has grown accustomed to covering its mouth on important issues so it doesn’t hurt any Jewish feelings.

And Avnery knows the answer; it is one that we have touched on already. Nobody in the pseudo-mainstream solidarity network would say something in such direct terms out of the fear of being labeled “anti-Semitic.” If anyone were to make such a bold statement, they would immediately be gagged by the Zionist media with accusations of “wanting to throw the Jews into the sea.” So instead, they tend to speak with vagueness and ambiguity, hiding behind the motifs of “human rights” and “equality”, which are indeed important, elemental facets of the struggle for Palestinian liberation but they are baseless as long as the Zionist entity exists. It is phobia of being buried as an “anti-Semite” that allows Zionist ideologues like Avnery to have a voice in the Palestine Solidarity Movement and actually be respected by a great deal of people. A murderer and a terrorist, looked upon favorably in relation to “human rights” and “equality”. This fear is crippling the solidarity movement and the root is Jewish supremacism, along with the Jewish demand that the “goyim” kowtow to it.
The solidarity network is desperate for mainstream support after 100 years of Jewish colonization and 64 years of Zionist occupation, and it feels that the only way to attain it is by presenting the struggle for Palestinian liberation as a joint effort between Arabs and Jews because the Zionist media (for obvious tribal reasons) actively treats Jews as the pristine pinnacle of humanity and Arabs (and Muslims) as the ugliest dregs of inhumanity. The struggle to liberate Palestine should certainly be one in which Arabs, Jews and all of humanity come together against the enemy Zionist entity. But they should be coming together for Palestine and only Palestine. There should be no ulterior motive, no tribal baggage that comes with Jewish support. There should be no concern for the ‘Israeli people,’ who are the oppressors, the colonizers, the occupiers, the ethnic cleansers and the murderers of the Palestinians, Lebanese and others. 94% of ‘Israeli’ society supported Operation Cast Lead and 71% wants to see Iran destroyed (69). 70% of ‘Israeli’ Jews view themselves as the superior race on earth (70). We, as supporters of Palestine, should be concerned with “the rights” of these Jewish supremacists? We should be concerned with “the rights” of baby killers over the babies killed? Really?

Are Jewish and ‘Israeli’ voices really necessary to understand what is taking place in occupied Palestine? Are Jewish and ‘Israeli’ voices really more important or more valuable than Palestinian voices, than the voices of those actually being murdered, actually being ethnically cleansed, actually being imprisoned, actually being tortured? Does the Jewish voice or the ‘Israeli’ voice hold more credibility than the Palestinian voice? The answer should be categorical from the solidarity movement: “We do not need a Jewish voice to validate the genocide.” Why are Jewish voices even being sought, considering 95% of American Jewry supports the criminal existence of the Zionist entity, and 90% of British Jewry does the same (71)? 64 years have passed since al-Nakba and the creation of ‘Israel’ and still, there is not a collective Jewish voice anywhere in the world demanding that every foreign occupier, every land-stealing invader, meaning every ‘Israeli’ in Palestine leave and leave now. Does this not speak volumes about the position of the international Jewish community? And doesn’t this uncomfortable but undeniable fact pose a direct threat to the peoples of Palestine, the Middle East and the globe in general?

The Palestine Solidarity Movement is so busy paying its respects to the propaganda-ridden “chosen” holocaust, it is failing to adequately fight for Palestine.

Is the Palestine Solidarity Movement afraid of speaking candidly on Palestine because it is afraid of agitating Jewish sensitivities? If so, why? Because of the holocaust? Is this what it means to show solidarity with the occupied, oppressed and dispossessed indigenous people of Palestine? To get down on one’s knees and supplicate to the sanctity, uniqueness and chosen-ness of the alleged Nazi judeocide, something Palestinians had nothing to do with, as if nobody else but Jews suffered during WW2? As if Germans themselves weren’t mercilessly slaughtered by the Allies’ bombs, at international Zionism’s behest? No, thank you, I will keep my dignity. The primacy of Jewish suffering culminating in Nazi judeocide is mythical; it is an idolatrous religion. And the historical narrative surrounding it is overloaded, I repeat, overloaded with deception after deception after deception, from the Zionist-Allied propaganda about homicidal gas chambers to the vastly inaccurate, Kabbalistic “6 million victims of anti-Semitic atrocities” figure that has been repeated by Jewish media sources since 1890 (72).

“Another holocaust” is intrinsic to the Zionist opposition to the real One State Solution, The Only State Solution: Palestine Restored with the Right of Return implemented and the removal of all Zionist colonists from the lands stolen by Jewish invaders during al-Nakba, al-Naksa and after that. They assess that it represents a modern day “anti-Semitic” expulsion of Jews, like the more than 100 other expulsions of Jews in Europe dating back to 1,000 years ago. They do not speak on why Jews were expelled from Europe then and they definitely don’t speak on why the Zionist Jews living on ethnically cleansed in Palestine would be expelled now. They would never say that this present “expulsion of Jews” is an expulsion of invaders, terrorists, murderers, land rapists and thieves. Both instances, past and present, are simply and nonsensically applied to “anti-Semitism,” as if Jews are incapable of doing wrong and “the goyim” are born with a Jew-hating gene. This is insulting to one’s intelligence, intellectually dishonest and racist, and borderline deranged.

Questioning this history is off-limits to regular citizens and for professionals, it is career suicide. And in regards to the holocaust specifically, it is literally criminal. What kind of incontrovertible historical evidence needs laws to protect it from questioning? It doesn’t; but lies, malevolent lies, definitely do. In Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, the Zionist regime itself, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Switzerland have some sort of law against holocaust ‘denial’/revisionism and several scholars have been arrested under these laws. Welcome to the Zionist version of 1984 on “chosen” steroids.

A closer look at the important exchange between investigative journalist Martin Iqbal and author Ben White.

A colleague and dear brother of mine, Martin Iqbal, investigative journalist extraordinaire of empirestrikesblack.com, recently had an exchange with prominent human rights activist and author Ben White on the social networking website, Twitter. In the exchange, brother Martin asks White if he supports the Zionist entity’s “right to exist” as a Jewish state on the pre-1967 borders, meaning the land that it stole during al-Nakba. White evades the question, vaguely replying with “I support one democratic state.” Brother Martin notes that “Right of Return can only be realized with removal of colonists from pre and post 1967 borders. Allowing the {Zionist} colonists to stay would preclude any democratic state; they have no moral or legal right to be there.”

White surprisingly responds with naivete, “The removal of colonists? What do you mean?” Brother Martin proceeds by explaining to the seemingly ignorant White in no uncertain terms that all Jews who came to Palestine as invaders during al-Nakba must leave while all Jews who lived in Palestine prior to al-Nakba absolutely should be allowed to stay. Furthermore, brother Martin accurately notes that thousands upon thousands of Palestinian refugees still hold the keys to the homes stolen by Zionist usurpers and that “they can only return to their land when the occupiers have left.” White responds to this bluntly, “We disagree then.” What White is advocating is that the usurpers of Palestine live side by side with the usurped of Palestine in “one democratic state.” This concept is directly averse to justice of any kind. Sadly, this position, which undisputably exists in the Palestine Solidarity Movement because of the paranoid practice of obsessively watching one’s words so one doesn’t upset Jews or rile up their ever-dreaded Jewish sensitivities, is held by a large majority of people. This position, this cruel, unjust position, which would grant occupation soldiers and land thieves the same rights as the brutalized Palestinians disconnected from their aboriginal lands, takes the cause for total liberation in a vice grip, strangles it and buries it.

The flag of Palestine is the only flag that belongs flying in the holy land. Never will the usurping Zionist entity be recognized. Ever.

Honest question here… are human rights, justice, equality and dignity actually being represented when the dreams of Palestinians yearning for Huriyeh (Arabic for freedom) all over the world are choked to death because the Solidarity Movement doesn’t want to offend the Jewish community with language that this global group of tribalists may find too harsh? Sorry, but I don’t give too much of a damn who is offended by this statement, Jew or non-Jew alike: “We will not recognize the Zionist entity under any circumstances. True peace in the region can only be attained when ‘Israel’ ceases to exist.”

Far too many Jews in the solidarity network operate with the tribal mindset of not only protecting the Zionist entity but the global Jewish-Zionist lobbying network which upholds it and therefore, they stifle debate on Zionism as an international, ideological behemoth and not simply another case of “settler-colonialism.” When one from within the Palestine Solidarity Movement points out the inescapable reality of tribal Jewish networking and powerful Zionist lobbying, they are drilled as anti-Semitic not just by the Zionist Lobby itself but Jewish “anti-Zionists” who are supposed to be fighting alongside them, not going out of their way to protect “the tribe” which is severely complicit in every crime committed against the Palestinian people. “Anti-Zionist” is yet another mask of Zion. And it is worn well by Jewish supremacists in the Solidarity Movement who do the dirty work for Zionist propaganda wings by acting as thought police (71). And as harsh as they are with Palestinians, which is pathologically wretched by itself, the “Anti-Zionist” Jewish thought police seem to be twice as harsh with righteous Jews who refuse to identify themselves as supremacists, like the aforementioned brother Jihad and the courageous Paul Eisen. The “Anti-Zionist” Jewish thought police are working to destroy these men (71).

How is it even conceivable that an arrogance this gargantuan exists?

Jews silencing exiled Palestinians on the issue of Palestine while terrorist occupiers like Uri Avnery are given a lofty platform to voice factually-deficient Zionist opinions and corrupt discourse? All the while, as these same “anti-Zionist” Jews are preaching to Palestinians about racism and “anti-Semitism,” they continue meeting in their exclusivist, chauvinist groups where only Jews are allowed; many of them overtly Zionist (74). How can this be tolerated?

There are very few persons in the Palestine Solidarity Movement willing to take on Zionism’s “anti-Semitism” blades. This must change.

How can a cause as beautiful as solidarity with the oppressed people of Palestine, a cause for all of humanity, be reduced to a cheap tool in the hands of tribal supremacists operating like a possessed swarm to protect their interests?

The answer is because they wield the “anti-Semitism” sword and excluding a select few persons ready to have their blood shed for the full liberation of Palestine, nobody wants to get cut.

The ideology of “chosen-ness” cannot be broken as long as this is accepted. Why would Jews leave the comforts of their ghettoized mentality when they can express “solidarity” with Palestine and put “the tribe” first at the same time? They must be broken of this, so they can truly join us in brotherhood and sisterhood. They cannot be broken of this if they aren’t challenged. The refusal to offer a challenge is a dangerous path leading to implosion for the Palestine Solidarity Movement because it shows that division, the division of the “dual-loyalty dilemma,” will always be present. This is not solidarity. This is tribalism. This is supremacism. This is destructive to everything that Palestinians and their true friends have fought for over the last six decades. This is Zionism doing what it does best: demolishing, undermining, maiming. Enough is enough. Khalas, as we say in Arabic. No more “anti-Zionist Zionists,” no more “peace process,” no more “two-state solutions,” no more holocaust religion and no more Uri Avnerys. It is time for the Palestine Solidarity Movement to be revamped.

“Palestine is the heartbeat of the struggle for humanity’s liberation from global tyranny.”

The current status quo is one of infiltration, Orwellianism and cowardice. We need cohesive unity, true freedom of thought and courage. We need truth, and then we will have justice, and then we will have peace. Palestine is the heartbeat of the struggle for humanity’s liberation from global tyranny. Palestine is the blood in the veins of the oppressed. We must make this known again. It is time for a Revolution; a real Revolution to make this known. The revolutionary knows no selfishness; only selflessness. The revolution knows no limits; only limitlessness in the pursuit of victory.
And our victory will be the full liberation of Palestine and all occupied, oppressed lands. To begin the implementation of this intention, we need a new pledge; a righteous pledge that will safeguard the dignity of the Palestinian people until the end of the time. That is what we shall be, “The Guardians of Dignity.” And we Guardians now present our pledge:

The Huriyeh Doctrine: 10 Principles of Solidarity
1. The name of the land between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea is Palestine. Only Palestine. Never will the Zionist entity occupying Palestine be recognized under any circumstances. Because it is a fabricated regime, “Israel” will always be referred to in quotation marks to affirm its lack of legitimacy and our commitment to categorically denying its equally fabricated “right to exist.” No to normalization, no to recognition, no to Zionism.
2. Every “Israeli” is an illegal settler. Every. Single. One. Thus, all persons identifying themselves as “Israelis” must leave Palestine immediately to make way for the 8 million ethnically cleansed Palestinian refugees all over the globe who want to exercise their universally-recognized Right of Return. Additionally, the word “Israeli” is synonymous with the following: murderer, killer, thief, uprooter, usurper, rapist, occupier, colonist, settler, fanatic, supremacist, terrorist, criminal, butcher, massacrer, chauvinist and racist. Never again will a Palestinian be told by an “Israeli” to leave his or her ancestral home. Never again will “Israelis” have a death grip on the land of Palestine.
3. As the indigenous people of the land, Palestinians have the sovereign right to choose what kind of society that they wish to live in, what kind of government that they wish to place in power and what kind of future that they want to build for future Palestinian generations. As the indigenous people of the land, they and they alone have the sovereign right to decide who is allowed entry into their land and who will be denied entry into their land. As the indigenous people of the land, they have the sovereign right to resist any act of aggression by any means that they deem necessary. Anyone who suggests that the Palestinians do not have these rights is irrelevant, an enemy or both.
4. Until the Zionist entity ceases to exist and Palestine is restored from the River to the Sea, it must be boycotted, divested from and sanctioned. No to “Israeli” companies, which are occupation profiteers and exploiters of Palestinian natural resources, no to “Israeli” products, which are made from those stolen natural resources, no to any artist, actor, author or musician who traveled to “Israel” and attempted to normalize with it and no to any and all companies headed by Zionists who serve as fifth columns for the usurping terrorist regime.
5. To uphold principles one, two and three, we vow to be steadfast and intrepid in unforgivingly exposing the driving force behind 100 years of Zionist colonization and 64 years of Zionist occupation in Palestine, al-Nakba, al-Naksa, the 22-year occupation of Southern Lebanon, the ongoing 44-year illegal occupation of Syria’s al-Jaulan (The Golan Heights), a plethora of the most bestial massacres known to man and countless other crimes: Jewish supremacism and its guiding books, the genocidal Old Testament, supremacist Talmud and satanic Kabbalah, as well as its guiding maniacal rabbis, the monstrous architects of the ideology; specifically those from the gangster cult of Chabad Lubavitch, who have already been successful in implementing Talmudic law in the United States. We vow to be vigilant in our pursuit of exposing these hideous truths so that what was done to Palestine is never repeated with any other nation or people ever again in history.
6. With the full blessing of their genocidal rabbis, and for the sole cause of Zionist domination of the world, Jewish supremacists have set up tribal networks and lobbying institutions of unchecked power that span the entire planet. These bulwarks of international Zionism have been integral in protecting the usurping Zionist entity from criticism on the global stage, silencing opponents of Zionist hegemony and securing funding for the ethnic cleansing project in Palestine from Western governments. Along with “Israel” itself, these networks and institutions must be dismantled and never allowed to reassemble for the sake of preserving humanity from all-out catastrophe. We vow to fight these Jewish supremacist manifestations with truth and expose their insidious plots so thoroughly and brightly that even the blind will see.
7. The Jewish-Zionist World Power Matrix, meaning the lobbies, networks and think tanks run by Jews of the supremacist extraction and their collaborationist Gentile lackeys, have been successful in misleading the world into supporting the so-called “War on Terror,” which is really a war on Islam, Muslims and Resistance to Zionist superintendence. It is an invention of Zionism; it is psychological warfare designed by Zionist warmongers and fearmongers to dehumanize the enemies of “Israel” and infect the world with hatred for Islam, which, according to racist, poisonous and highly-revered rabbinical ‘sage’ Maimonides, “is the cruelest and most implacable enemy that the Jewish people have faced in their entire history.” This Jewish supremacist desire to destroy Islam is given enormous support by the media, which is owned and run by Zionists, Hollywood, which is owned and run by Zionists and the international banking system, which is also controlled by Zionists, chiefly the demonic Rothschild family, the godfathers of “Israel.” The newest narrative of these same Zionist war-makers is the “humanitarian intervention,” which is already integrated with and swiftly replacing the “War on Terror.” We vow to expose this Matrix in its entirety, no matter how cringe-worthy the details may be; we vow to expose it and take it down.
8. As the great revolutionary Malcolm X once said, “The media is the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent.” The Zionist media has been the most important organ of the Jewish-Zionist World Power Matrix in its quest for “Jewish Utopia.” The Zionist media is an organ of liars and propagandists, hasbaraniks and disinformers, bigots, fools and agents. It has helped dehumanize the people of occupied Palestine, as well as other victims of Zionist-engineered aggression, including but not limited to Lebanon, Iraq, Pakistan, occupied Afghanistan, occupied Somalia, Libya and Yemen, and it has deliberately blotted out the plight of the people of occupied Kashmir.
Nothing that emanates from the Zionist media can be trusted; nothing. We reject its credibility entirely. We reject its “history” entirely. We reject its narratives entirely. We recognize that there is overwhelming evidence that “Israel” murdered United States President John F. Kennedy, as well as his brother, Robert F. Kennedy. We demand the exposure of the “Israeli” assault on the USS Liberty during al-Naksa. We recognize that the attacks of September 11th in New York City, July 7th in London, November 26th in Mumbai and hundreds of other attacks wrongfully blamed on Muslims were false flag operations executed primarily by the Zionist entity’s Mossad, whose motto is, “By the way of deception, thou shalt wage war.” These truths are fundamental to fighting for the full liberation of Palestine and understanding the true nature of the Zionist threat devouring everything that we hold dear. We declare our relentless willingness to ensure that these truths go viral throughout the world.
9. We declare that the Huriyeh of Palestine is incomplete without the Azadi of Kashmir. For over 150 years, Kashmiris have been suffering under a system of colonial oppression and for the last 65 years, they have been militarily occupied by 750,000 Indian forces, making Kashmir the longest-running occupation and most militarized zone on earth. The Zionist media has been key in making sure that Kashmir vanished from the global psyche and it has been done because “Israel” has been assisting India with the brutal occupation of Kashmir from genesis, providing arms, funds, training and diplomatic support. The governing ideology behind the Indian occupation of Kashmir is Hindutva, a mirror image of Zionism. The force behind Hindutva is Hindu supremacism, a first cousin of Jewish supremacism. The Hindutvadi regime is the Zionist entity’s closest ally and trade between the two occupations is at an all-time high: $14 billion, $9 billion of it coming from “defense.” Hindutva’s bloody fingerprints are all over Palestine and Zionism’s bloody fingerprints are all over Kashmir.
Until Kashmir is granted its Azadi from savage Hindutvadi occupation, from one end of the Vale to the other, we demand that India be boycotted, divested from and sanctioned. No to Indian products. No to Indian companies. No to any artist, actor, author or musician who traveled to India and attempted to whitewash Hindutva’s crimes in Kashmir. No, no, no to Bollywood and its delusions. And no to any company headed by Hindutvadis, who like their Zionist brethren, serve as fifth columns for the cruel Indian occupation. End Hindutva, end Zionism. Full liberation for Palestine, full liberation for Kashmir. Huriyeh! Azadi! Now!
10. The primacy of Jewish suffering and the notion of perennial Jewish victimhood are grossly distorted on the historical level and at their very core, are myths that have been used by Zionists to shackle humanity with guilt, browbeating it into supporting any and every crime committed by the Jewish supremacist entity and its vast criminal network of sayanim. We reject these myths unconditionally. The holocaust religion, which is the propaganda apex of these myths, is a dangerous belief system that Zionist domineers force upon Jewish and Gentile children through their media and Hollywood apparatuses, making them indifferent to the suffering of everybody else on earth but Jews, especially those innocents who have been wronged, massacred, invaded and brutalized by “Israel,” directly or by proxy. We reject the holocaust religion and the Zionist propaganda that has propped it up for decades. We reject the Jewish supremacist construct of “chosen-ness.” We recognize the suffering of all strands of humanity at the hands of these wicked supremacists and we recognize the rights of humanity to fight back against them and bring about a better, just and peaceful world.
Any soul who adheres to these principles is a true friend of Palestine and a true friend of the oppressed. Who will take a stand and join the Guardians of Dignity in the struggle to liberate Palestine and the Solidarity Movement from the clutches of Zionist subversives? Those who do will have their names etched in the halls of champions and warriors when our righteous struggle comes to an end. Those who don’t will slip deeper and deeper into servitude to the sensitivities of Jewish supremacists like Uri Avnery, whether they know it or not. They will be crippled into invalidity by the apprehension of “anti-Semitism.” For our Revolution to take flight, our wings of Resistance must be unbreakable. I am ready to resist; I am ready to fly for Palestine, Kashmir and the oppressed of the north, south, east and west. In fact, alhamdulillah, I already am. The question is… are you?
~ End of Part II, End of Series ~
(49) Two Americas by Uri Avnery, Counter Punch
(50) Obama And The Jews by Pauline Dubkin Yearwood, The Chicago Jewish News
(51) How Barack Obama Learned To Love Israel by Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada
(52) BrightSource: Obama’s Latest Gift To Israel by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion
(53) Understanding The Opposition To NATO’s Intervention In Libya by Uri Avnery, Redress Information and Analysis
(54) The Top Ten Myths In The War Against Libya by Professor Maximilian C. Forte, Counter Punch
(55) One Million Man March For Gaddafi: Where Is This Story? by Pravda
(56) The Destruction Of Libya And The Murder Of Muammar Gaddafi by P. Ngigi Njoroge, Empire Strikes Black
(57) Libya: ‘U.S. Took A Back Seat’ Myth Takes Another Hit As Obama Admits Americans Flew French Jets by Martin Iqbal, Empire Strikes Black
(58) The ‘Rebel’ Assassination Of Muammar Gaddafi: A NATO Operation From A To Z by Martin Iqbal, Empire Strikes Black
(59) Gaddafi Sodomized: Video Shows Abuse Frame By Frame (GRAPHIC) by Tracy Shelton, Global Post
(60) PSYWAR: The Fake Fall Of Tripoli And The Zionist Dragon’s Butchery Across Palestine I by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion
(61) Neo-Con Hawks Take Flight Over Libya by Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service
(62) American Jewish Committee Behind “Humanitarian Intervention” In Libya by Maidhc Ó Cathail, The Passionate Attachment
(63) British Media Use ‘Puppy Dog’ Imagery To Sell Genocidal Attack On Libya by Martin Iqbal, Empire Strikes Black
(64) Syria: Zionist Mobilization Kicks Into High Gear by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion
(65) The Boycott Revisited by Uri Avnery, The Dissident Voice
(66) A Hebrew Lesson: Peace Is Not Shalom And Shalom Is Not Sharon by Gilad Atzmon, Gilad.co.uk
(67) 1948 Remembered By The People Who Were There by The Independent
(68) Of Semites and ‘Anti-Semites’ by Eric Alterman, The Nation
(69) The Palestinian Statehood Sham: A Donkey Heads To The Den Of Vipers by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion
(70) Survey: Record Number Of Israeli Jews Believe In God by Nir Hasson, Haaretz
(71) Did the Age of Enlightenment never occur? by Nahida Izzat The Exiled Palestinian, Uprooted Palestinians
(72) The “Six Million” Myth by The Works and Research of Zion Crime Factory
(73) Concerning Mondoweiss, Racism and Freedom of Speech by Nahida Izzat The Exiled Palestinian, Uprooted Palestinians
(74) Will PSC rise to the Challenge? by Nahida Izzat The Exiled Palestinian,

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

How Magic turned against Magicians

Since I started my on-line activity I used to say:
Blood shall defeat the sword
Magic shall turn against Magicians

Hear it from Uri Avnery the low calorie zionist.

I only want to tell Uri, you should express your debt of gratitude to British Empire and its tool Zionism for creation your zionist entity as a buffer to prevent Arab unity.

Without the British active help, and Arab treason your zionist dreams could never come true.

PLO was founded to liberate Palestine from river to see. So I would express my debt of gratitude to your friendship with our with PLO chairman “father palestine” and his linkman, Alan Hart, with your Perez for its role in the growth of Islamic movements in the Middle East – Hamas in Palestine, Hizbollah in Lebanon, and the Islamic revolution in Iran.

Shukran Uri

How Israel helped Islamist movements to flourish across the Middle East

By Uri Avnery

31 December 2011

Uri Avnery charts Israel’s role in the growth of Islamist movements in the Middle East – Hamas in Palestine, Hizbollah in Lebanon, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Shi’i theocracy in Iran.

If Islamist movements come to power all over the region, they should express their debt of gratitude to their bete noire, Israel.

Without the active or passive help of successive Israeli governments, they may not have been able to realize their dreams.

That is true in Gaza, in Beirut, in Cairo and even in Tehran.


Let’s take the example of Hamas.

“Turning the Palestinians towards Islam, it was thought [by the Israeli secret police], would weaken the PLO and its main faction, Fatah. So everything was done to help the Islamic movement discreetly.”

All over the Arab lands, dictators have been faced with a dilemma. They could easily close down all political and civic activities, but they could not close the mosques. In the mosques people could congregate in order to pray, organize charities and, secretly, set up political organizations. Before the days of Twitter and Facebook, that was the only way to reach masses of people.
One of the dictators faced with this dilemma was the Israel military governor in the occupied Palestinian territories. Right from the beginning, he forbade any political activity. Even peace activists went to prison. Advocates of non-violence were deported. Civic centres were closed down. Only the mosques remained open. There people could meet.

But this went beyond tolerance. The General Security Service (known as Shin Bet or Shabak) had an active interest in the flourishing of the mosques. People who pray five times a day, they thought, have no time to build bombs.
The main enemy, as laid down by Shabak, was the dreadful Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), led by that monster, Yasser Arafat. The PLO was a secular organization, with many prominent Christian members, aiming at a “non-sectarian” Palestinian state. They were the enemies of the Islamists, who were talking about a pan-Islamic Caliphate.
Turning the Palestinians towards Islam, it was thought, would weaken the PLO and its main faction, Fatah. So everything was done to help the Islamic movement discreetly.

It was a very successful policy, and the security people congratulated themselves on their cleverness, when something untoward happened. In December 1987, the first intifada broke out. The mainstream Islamists had to compete with more radical groupings. Within days, they transformed themselves into the Islamic Resistance Movement (Arabic acronym Hamas) and became the most dangerous foes of Israel. Yet it took Shabak more than a year before they arrested Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, the Hamas leader. In order to fight this new menace, Israel came to an agreement with the PLO in Oslo.

And now, irony of ironies, Hamas is about to join the PLO and take part in a Palestinian national unity government. They really should send us a message saying shukran (“thanks”).


Our part in the rise of Hizbollah is less direct, but no less effective.

When Ariel Sharon rolled into Lebanon in 1982, his troops had to cross the mainly Shi’i south. The Israeli soldiers were received as liberators. Liberators from the PLO, which had turned this area into a state within a state.

“To outflank Amal [the main Shi’i political group in Lebanon in the early 1980s], Israel encouraged a small, more radical, rival: God’s Party, Hizbollah.”

Following the troops in my private car, trying to reach the front, I had to traverse about a dozen Shi’i villages. In each one I was detained by the villagers, who insisted that I have coffee in their homes.

Neither Sharon nor anyone else paid much attention to the Shi’is. In the federation of autonomous ethnic-religious communities that is called Lebanon, the Shi’is were the most downtrodden and powerless.

However, the Israelis outstayed their welcome. It took the Shi’is just a few weeks to realize that they had no intention of leaving. So, for the first time in their history, they rebelled. The main political group, Amal (“Hope”), started small armed actions. When the Israelis did not take the hint, operations multiplied and turned into a fully-fledged guerrilla war.

To outflank Amal, Israel encouraged a small, more radical, rival: God’s Party, Hizbollah.

If Israel had got out then (as the Israeli satirical political magazine Haolam Hazeh demanded), not much harm would have been done. But they remained for a full 18 years, ample time for Hizbollah to turn into an efficient fighting machine, earn the admiration of the Arab masses everywhere, take over the leadership of the Shi’i community and become the most powerful force in Lebanese politics.

They, too, owe us a big shukran.

Muslim Brotherhood

The case of the Muslim Brotherhood is even more complex.

“Had Israel made peace with the Palestinian people somewhere along the line, the Brotherhood would have lost much of its lustre. As it is, they are emerging from the present democratic elections as the central force in Egyptian politics.”

The organization was founded in 1928, 20 years before the state of Israel. Its members volunteered to fight us in 1948. They are passionately pan-Islamic, and the Palestinian plight is close to their hearts.

As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict worsened, the popularity of the Brothers grew. Since the 1967 war, in which Egypt lost Sinai, and even more after the separate peace agreement with Israel, they stoked the deep-seated resentment of the masses in Egypt and all over the Arab world. The assassination of Anwar al-Sadat was not of their doing, but they rejoiced.

Their opposition to the peace agreement with Israel was not only an Islamist, but also an authentic Egyptian reaction. Most Egyptians felt cheated and betrayed by Israel. The Camp David agreement had an important Palestinian component, without which the agreement would have been impossible for Egypt. Sadat, a visionary, looked at the big picture and believed that the agreement would quickly lead to a Palestinian state. Menachem Begin, a lawyer, saw to the fine print. Generations of Jews have been brought up on the Talmud, which is mainly a compilation of legal precedents, and their mind has been honed by legalistic arguments. Not for nothing are Jewish lawyers in demand the world over.

Actually, the agreement made no mention of a Palestinian state, only of autonomy, phrased in a way that allowed Israel to continue the occupation. That was not what the Egyptians had been led to believe, and their resentment was palpable. Egyptians are convinced that their country is the leader of the Arab world, and bears a special responsibility for every part of it. They cannot bear to be seen as the betrayers of their poor, helpless Palestinian cousins.

Long before he was overthrown, Hosni Mubarak was despised as an Israeli lackey, paid by the US. For Egyptians, his despicable role in the Israeli blockade of a million and a half Palestinians in the Gaza Strip was particularly shameful.

Since their beginnings in the 1920s, Brotherhood leaders and activists have been hanged, imprisoned, tortured and otherwise persecuted. Their anti-regime credentials are impeccable. Their stand for the Palestinians contributed a lot to this image.

Had Israel made peace with the Palestinian people somewhere along the line, the Brotherhood would have lost much of its lustre. As it is, they are emerging from the present democratic elections as the central force in Egyptian politics.

Shukran, Israel.

Islamic Republic of Iran

Let’s not forget the Islamic Republic of Iran.
They owe us something, too. Quite a lot, actually.
In 1951, in the first democratic elections in an Islamic country in the region, Muhammad Mossadeq was elected prime minister. The Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had been installed by the British during World War II, was thrown out, and Mossadeq nationalized the country’s vital oil industry. Until then, the British had robbed the Iranian people, paying a pittance for the “black gold”.

“Israelis made fortunes selling weapons to the Iranian army [under the Shah]. Israeli Shabak agents trained the Shah’s dreaded secret police, Savak. It was widely believed that they also taught them torture techniques.”

Two years later, in a coup organized by the British MI6 and the American CIA, the Shah was brought back and returned the oil to the hated British and their partners. Israel had probably no part in the coup, but under the restored regime of the Shah, Israel prospered. Israelis made fortunes selling weapons to the Iranian army. Israeli Shabak agents trained the Shah’s dreaded secret police, Savak. It was widely believed that they also taught them torture techniques. The Shah helped to build and pay for a pipeline for Iranian oil from Eilat to Ashkelon. Israeli generals travelled through Iran to Iraqi Kurdistan, where they helped the rebellion against Baghdad.

At the time, the Israeli leadership was cooperating with the South African apartheid regime in developing nuclear arms. The two offered the Shah partnership in the effort, so that Iran, too, would become a nuclear power.

Before that partnership became effective, the detested ruler was overthrown by the Islamic revolution of February 1979. Since then, the hatred of the Great Satan (the US) and the Little Satan (Israel) has played a major role in the propaganda of the Islamic regime. It has helped to keep the loyalty of the masses, and now Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is using it to bolster his rule.

It seems that all Iranian factions – including the opposition – now support the Iranian effort to obtain a nuclear bomb of their own, ostensibly to deter an Israeli nuclear attack. (This week, the chief of the Mossad pronounced that an Iranian nuclear bomb would not constitute an “existential danger” to Israel.)

Where would the Islamic Republic be without Israel? So they owe us a big “Thank you”, too.
However, let us not be too megalomaniac. Israel has contributed a lot to the Islamist awakening. But it is not the only – or even the main – contributor.
Strange as it may appear, obscurantist religious fundamentalism seems to express the zeitgeist. An American nun-turned-historian, Karen Armstrong, has written an interesting book following the three fundamentalist movements in the Muslim world, in the US and in Israel. It shows a clear pattern: all these divergent movements – Muslim, Christian and Jewish – have passed through almost identical and simultaneous stages.

At present, all Israel is in turmoil because the powerful Orthodox community is compelling women in many parts of the country to sit separately in the back of buses, like blacks in the good old days in Alabama, and use separate pavements on one side of the streets. Male religious soldiers are forbidden by their rabbis to listen to women soldiers singing. In Orthodox districts, women are compelled to swathe their bodies in garments that reveal nothing but their faces and hands, even in temperatures of 30 degrees Celsius and above. An eight-year-old girl from a religious family was spat upon in the street because her clothes were not “modest” enough. In counter-demonstrations, secular women waved posters saying “Tehran is Here!”

Perhaps some day a fundamentalist Israel will make peace with a fundamentalist Muslim world, under the auspices of a fundamentalist American president.

Unless we do something to stop the process before it is too late.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Is the End of Israel here?

In 2001, Israel-Russian writer Israel Shamir predicted the end of Israel, saying: “Israel is Doomed. She is disgusting to the Arabs, the French, the English, even to herself. The red-hot intifada is the fiery river, into which melts and sinks to the bottom another myth of the 20th century – the theory of Zionism. According to designs of Herzl and Jabotinsky, a small geopolitical monstrosity was created on Arab lands. Its settlers have imposed on America and Germany the annual tribute of five billions dollars. They pour napalm on the mosques and transform whole nations into homeless refugees. They brainwash the whole world by their ashes of Auschwitz.”

On February 8, 2011 – British Jewish Chronicle reported Ronald Lauder (Reagan’s ambassador to Austria), President of the World Jewish Congress (WJC) has “called for Israel to be admitted into NATO in order to guarantee its survival in the future. NATO membership “would send a strong signal to other countries not to take on Israel”.

This month three Zionist Jew writers (Benny Morris, Thomas Friedman and Aluf Benn) and one Islamophobe Zionist Christian (Victor Davis) have agreed with Israel Shamir’s ten-year-old prophecy.

“This is no longer (socialist/communist) Israel. A profound, internal, existential crisis has arrived. It stems in part from the changing nature of the country, more right wing, more restrictive, far less liberal, and far less egalitarian. Many moderate Israelis fear the country is heading for ruin*. Indeed, the country’s ruling class, including Benjamin Netanyahu and his predecessors Ehud Olmert (now on trial for corruption) and Ehud Barak (a former head of the Labor Party and current defense minister), live in opulence, and the feeling is that they are out of touch with reality. In Tel Aviv, where some 350,000 gathered in protest, a widespread chant, set to a popular children’s ditty, was “Bibi has three apartments, which is why we have none,” wrote Benny Morris in Israeli Hasbara organ, The Daily Beast, on September 11, 2011.

“I’VE never been more worried about Israel’s future. The crumbling of key pillars of Israel’s security – the peace with Egypt, the stability of Syria and the friendship of Turkey and Jordan – coupled with the most diplomatically inept and strategically incompetent government in Israel’s history have put Israel in a very dangerous situation.,” wrote Thomas Friedman in the NYT on September 17, 2011.

“Israel is entering the looming confrontation with the Palestinians isolated, weak and abhorred by the international community. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is now having to pay the price for the changes in the Middle East: the decline of the American superpower, the rise of Erdoganist Turkey, Iran’s progress in its nuclear project and the empowerment of the masses in the Arab states,” wrote Aluf Benn in Ha’aretz on September 16, 2011.

“A soon-to-be-nuclear Iran serially promises to destroy Israel. The Erdogan government in Turkey brags about its Ottoman Islamist past – and wants to provoke Israel into an eastern-Mediterranean shooting war. Pakistan is the world’s leading host and exporter of jihadists obsessed with destroying Israel,” wrote Victor Davis Hanson in Ziocon National Review Online on September 22, 2011.
Against all these whining Israel-Firsters – America’s first Jewish President Barack Obama, who has proved himself to be the most radical supporter of all US presidents has come to rescue the Zionist regime from world isolation at the United Nations. His speech at UNGA left everyone in Israel dumbstruck. Obama sounded more like David Ben Gurion, the first prime minister of the Zionist entity

Meanwhile, Israeli Military: No budget-No Defense
* in case you missed it

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Kudos Mr. Abbas‏, the tragic hero": The “plucked chicken” is soaring into the sky. Give him a chance

“Will U.S., Israel give Abbas a chance? Thus asked Uri Avnery on Dec, 2004, “Abu Mazen represents the Fatah Old Guard, while his opponents represent the fighters of the first and second intifadas. But the real confrontation is between two world views and two grand strategies for the Palestinian national liberation struggle.”

U.S., Israel gave Abbas the chance, supported him to smash opponents in his own Fatah party, but what was the outcome?

Hamas has won a surprise victory in January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections. “Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said after a three-hour emergency meeting on Thursday that Israel would not negotiate with a Palestinian government including Hamas.”  and Bush “hoped Mr Abbas would stay in power.”

The election results stunned U.S. and Israeli officials, who have repeatedly stated that they would not work with a Palestinian Authority that included Hamas, which both countries and the European Union have designated as a terrorist organization. In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that a party could not “have one foot in politics and the other in terror. Our position on Hamas has therefore not changed.”

“CAN ABBAS be saved?” asked Uri Avnery on June 25, 2007. I don’t know.” he answered, “Some of my Palestinian friends are in despair.

They grew up in Fateh, and Fateh is their home. They are secularists. They are nationalists. They definitely do not want a fanatical Islamic regime in their homeland.

But in the present conflict, their heart is with Hamas. Their mind is split. And that is not surprising.”, he added

Again the U.S. and Israel gave Abbas the chance, because Abbas is a necessity for both,

“Abbas cannot be “eliminated” the usual way, as were [Hamas leader] Sheikh Ahmad Yassin and many other Palestinian leaders. In the case of Abbas, it is not even allowed to use the word “elimination” – an official term of the Israeli army, taken straight from the Mafia lexicon.”


In the final analysis, Abbas is under the control of Usrael, they always have the carrot and the stick. THEYsupported him to smash Hamas in WB, launced brutal war on Besiged Gaza,
starved Gazans for electing Hamas.

What was the outcome?

Hear it from Uri. On September 14, 2009, Uri wrote, Barack Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas – All three of them – are fighting for their political life. The three battles are quite different from each other, yet interconnected.” The three battles are still ongoing and still interconnected.

The Palestinian UN bid: Abbas and the Domestic Front

“Behind the scene, there is a domestic political imperative behind Abbas decision. Yes, he wants to seek a statehood, but he is also planning his own political survival.

For many years, Abbas watched his popularity plummet among the Palestinian public. Many viewed him as a collaborator who only maintain Israel security. Netanyahu made things even harder, his refusal to renew the moratorium on settlement building in the West Bank has led to the final breakdown of the direct negotiations.

By opting to go outside the framework of the Oslo accord, Abbas would probably be able to regain his popularity among the Palestinians, snooker the Israelis and US and most importantly score a few points against Hamas….

he also understands the Palestinian psyche who will probably appreciate the small gains from the UN more than any achievement from any negotiated settlement….By seeking the UN bid, Abbas would enhance the image of a leader who want to create a state for his own people and is willing to defy the USA”the world superpower”to achieve his goal….Abbas is banking on two factors; the Arab uprising and the risk of Hamas take over the West bank…The UN bid is ideal for Abbas domestic needs. The UN may not offer the Palestinians full statehood, but would give Abbas a reasonable chance for political survival in the possible next year election and that is what probably matters most to him. As for a permanent solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, there appears to be no strategy except prayers!”

The the zionist hasbara outlets denouced the “deadly serious implications of Abbas’ U.N. campaign,”

“it has elements of farce. Abbas can’t claim to represent all of Palestine. Hamas, not the Palestinian Authority, rules in the Gaza Strip, and it has no interest in any settlement that recognizes the Jewish state. What’s more, Abbas’ election mandate ran out two years ago, and no new elections have been possible because of the Gaza-West Bank schism.”

Obama’s speech confirmed Uri Avnery’s worries:  Obama on the wrong side of history and Egypt will change his live, you
Uri, rejoice, but the wise speech of yoyr “tragic hero”shall not stop the water rising slowly and silently behind the dam, until it burst, sweeping the illustion of possible peace with Zionism. 

Mahmoud Abbas and Barack Obama: “tragic hero” vs political prostitute

By Uri Avnery

24 September 2011

Uri Avnery compares Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas’s gamble in making a bid for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations – and thereby putting Palestine at the centre of world attention – with Barack Obama’s sheer unprincipled prostitution in the service of Israel – all for the sake of a second term as president.

”The Arab Spring may have been a last chance for the US to recover its standing in the Middle East. After some hesitation, Obama realized that…

“Now he has blown it, perhaps forever. No self-respecting Arab will forgive him for plunging his knife into the back of the helpless Palestinians. All the credit the US has tried to gain in the last months in the Arab and the wider Muslim world has been blown away with one puff.” (Uri Avnery)

A wonderful speech. A beautiful speech.

The language expressive and elegant. The arguments clear and convincing. The delivery flawless.

A work of art. The art of hypocrisy. Almost every statement in the passage concerning the Israeli-Palestinian issue was a lie. A blatant lie: the speaker knew it was a lie, and so did the audience.

It was Obama at his best, Obama at his worst.

Being a moral person, he must have felt the urge to vomit. Being a pragmatic person, he knew that he had to do it, if he wanted to be re-elected.

 Obama – selling America’s national interests for a second term

In essence, he sold the fundamental national interests of the United States of America for the chance of a second term.

Not very nice, but that’s politics, OK?

It may be superfluous – almost insulting to the reader – to point out the mendacious details of this rhetorical edifice.

Obama treated the two sides as if they were equal in strength – Israelis and Palestinians, Palestinians and Israelis.

But of the two, it is the Israelis – only they – who suffer and have suffered. Persecution. Exile. Holocaust. An Israeli child threatened by rockets. Surrounded by the hatred of Arab children. So sad.

Obama spewed out a “straight right-wing Israeli propaganda line, pure and simple – the terminology, the historical narrative, the argumentation. The music.”

No occupation. No settlements. No June 1967 borders. No Nakba. No Palestinian children killed or frightened. It’s the straight right-wing Israeli propaganda line, pure and simple – the terminology, the historical narrative, the argumentation. The music.

The Palestinians, of course, should have a state of their own. Sure, sure. But they must not be pushy. They must not embarrass the US. They must not come to the UN. They must sit with the Israelis, like reasonable people, and work it out with them. The reasonable sheep must sit down with the reasonable wolf and decide what to have for dinner. Foreigners should not interfere.

Obama gave full service. A lady who provides this kind of service generally gets paid in advance. Obama got paid immediately afterwards, within the hour. Netanyahu sat down with him in front of the cameras and gave him enough quotable professions of love and gratitude to last for several election campaigns.

Mahmoud Abbas – “a tragic hero”

The “plucked chicken” is soaring into the sky.
Not bad for a chicken, even for one with a full set of feathers

The tragic hero of this affair is Mahmoud Abbas. A tragic hero, but a hero nonetheless.

Many people may be surprised by this sudden emergence of Abbas as a daring player for high stakes, ready to confront the mighty US.

If Ariel Sharon were to wake up for a moment from his years-long coma, he would faint with amazement. It was he who called Mahmoud Abbas “a plucked chicken”.

Yet for the last few days, Abbas was the centre of global attention. World leaders conferred about how to handle him, senior diplomats were eager to convince him of this or that course of action, commentators were guessing what he would do next. His speech before the UN General Assembly was treated as an event of consequence.

Not bad for a chicken, even for one with a full set of feathers.
His emergence as a leader on the world stage is somewhat reminiscent of Anwar Sadat.

When Gamal Abd-al-Nasser unexpectedly died at the age of 52 in 1970 and his official deputy, Sadat, assumed his mantle, all political experts shrugged.

Sadat? Who the hell is that? He was considered a no-nentity, an eternal No. 2, one of the least important members of the group of “free officers” that was ruling Egypt.

“Sit, Anwar!”

In Egypt, a land of jokes and jokers, witticisms about him abounded. One concerned the prominent brown mark on his forehead. The official version was that it was the result of much praying, hitting the ground with his forehead. But the real reason, it was told, was that at meetings, after everyone else had spoken, Sadat would get up and try to say something. Nasser would good-naturedly put his finger to his forehead, push him gently down and say: “Sit, Anwar!”

Sit, Pharaoah

To the utter amazement of the experts – and especially the Israeli ones – this “non-entity” took a huge gamble by starting the 1973 October War, and proceeded to do something unprecedented in history: going to the capital of an enemy country still officially in a state of war and making peace.

Abbas’ status under Yasser Arafat was not unlike Sadat’s under Nasser. However, Arafat never appointed a deputy. Abbas was one of a group of four or five likely successors. The heir would surely have been Abu Jihad, had he not been killed by Israeli commandoes in front of his wife and children. Another likely candidate, Abu Iyad, was killed by Palestinian terrorists. Abu Mazen (Abbas) was in a way the choice by default.

Such politicians, emerging suddenly from under the shadow of a great leader, generally fall into one of two categories: the eternal frustrated No. 2 or the surprising new leader.

The Bible gives us examples of both kinds. The first was Rehoboam, the son and heir of the great King Solomon, who told his people: “my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions”. The other kind was represented by Joshua, the heir of Moses. He was no second Moses, but according to the story a great conqueror in his own right.

Modern history tells the sad story of Anthony Eden, the long-suffering No. 2 of Winston Churchill, who commanded little respect. (Mussolini called him, after their first meeting, “a well-tailored idiot”.). Upon assuming power, he tried desperately to equal Churchill and soon embroiled Britain in the 1956 Suez disaster. To the second category belonged Harry Truman, the nobody who succeeded the great Franklin Delano Roosevelt and surprised everybody as a resolute leader.

Putting Palestine at the centre of world attention

“Abbas has placed the quest for Palestinian freedom squarely on the international table. For more than a week, Palestine has been the centre of international attention.”

Abbas looked like belonging to the first kind. Now, suddenly, he is revealed as belonging to the second. The world is treating him with newfound respect. Nearing the end of his career, he made the big gamble.

But was it wise? Courageous, yes. Daring, yes. But wise?

My answer is: yes, it was.

Abbas has placed the quest for Palestinian freedom squarely on the international table. For more than a week, Palestine has been the centre of international attention. Scores of international statesmen – and women – including the leader of the world’s only superpower, have been busy with Palestine.
For a national movement, that is of the utmost importance. Cynics may ask: “So what did they gain from it?” But cynics are fools. A liberation movement gains from the very fact that the world pays attention, that the media grapple with the problem, that people of conscience all over the world are aroused. It strengthens morale at home and brings the struggle a step nearer its goal. [All to save his political career -UP]

Oppression shuns the limelight. Occupation, settlements, ethnic cleansing thrive in the shadows. It is the oppressed who need the light of day. Abbas’s move provided it, at least for the time being.

“Oppression shuns the limelight. Occupation, settlements, ethnic cleansing thrive in the shadows. It is the oppressed who need the light of day.”

Barack Obama’s miserable performance was a nail in the coffin of America’s status as a superpower. In a way, it was a crime against the United States.

The Arab Spring may have been a last chance for the US to recover its standing in the Middle East. After some hesitation, Obama realized that. He called on Mubarak to go, helped the Libya-ns against their tyrant, made some noises about Bashar al-Assad. He knows that he has to regain the respect of the Arab masses if he wants to recover some stature in the region, and by extension throughout the world. [SO, Its all about democracy!!! Its the bloody oil and “Shalom” for Israel, stupid]

Now he has blown it, perhaps forever. No self-respecting Arab will forgive him for plunging his knife into the back of the helpless Palestinians. All the credit the US has tried to gain in the last months in the Arab and the wider Muslim world has been blown away with one puff.

All for re-election.

It was also a crime against Israel.

[Why Uri??  here is the answer: A letter from a 1948 settler to 1967 settlers in Gaza ]

Israel needs peace. Israel needs to live side by side with the Palestinian people, within the Arab world. Israel cannot rely forever on the unconditional support of the declining United States.

Obama knows this full well. He knows what is good for Israel, even if Netanyahu doesn’t. Yet he has handed the keys of the car to the drunken driver.

The state of Palestine will come into being. This week it was already clear that this is unavoidable. Obama will be forgotten, as will Netanyahu, Lieberman and the whole bunch.

Mahmoud Abbas – Abu Mazen, as the Palestinians call him – will be remembered. The “plucked chicken” is soaring into the sky.

Kudos Mr. Abbas‏,

Thus commented Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh

Dr. Mazin is vey exited with the “brilliant speech at the United Nations, getting rounds of applause from most of the representatives”

I think it demonstrated clearly and unambiguously that the Palestinian leadership has been “unreasonably reasonable” and has instead seen the hopes of peace and of millions of Palestinians suffering for 63 years dashed on the rock of Israeli expansionist, colonial, and apartheid policies. He explained that Israel has been taking one unilateral action after another each resulting in more pain and suffering for our people. Going to the UN, he explained is putting things back where the problems started (he did not use the last two words but I do). He said a word that I think he should defend strongly that no person or country with an iota of logic or conscience should reject the Palestinian state membership in the UN or its formation in the 22% of historic Palestine that is the West Bank and Gaza. I think he took a courageous step and gave a good performance.”

Mazin is optimistic, Abbas would “now implement quickly the reconciliation agreement…would act quickly and decisively to really promote popular unarmed resistance throughout Palestine.”  In other words, Hamas and resistance factions should willingly lay arms or othetwise.

“A new strategy to encourage real nonviolent resistance must be adopted”….Mazin is “waiting to see clear evidence of change; a new Palestinian Spring as Mr. Abbas called it.”

I am adraid, Mazin’s “new strategy would end with a “new book”: Sharing the “Land of Samira”


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Uri Avnery Elaborates on Israeli Psychosis

DateSunday, July 10, 2011 at 10:05PM AuthorGilad Atzmon

He referes to the Israeli ignorance, arrogance and collective neurosis.
“Israelis are not afraid of war, they are afraid of peace”

I don’t always agree with Avnery but I have a lot of respect to this brave man.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

We March to Jerusalem, Martyrs in the Millions


Despite his desperate attempts to appear thrilled and delighted for the recent events in the Middle East, the words of Uri Avnery could not hide his ominous mood; fear, panic and gloom.

He frantically strives to rescue his “zionist dream”; the “Jewish state”, by his alarming words pointing at the inevitable hidden danger awaiting his brethren, just around the corner, if they fail to act, and act fast.

Uri-in the Irgun terrorist group

“What will happen if hundreds of thousands of Palestinians march one day to the Separation Wall and pull it down? What if a quarter of a million Palestinian refugees in Lebanon gather on our Northern border? What if masses of people assemble in Manara Square in Ramallah and Town Hall Square in Nablus and confront the Israeli troops? Mr. Avnery asks.

then he warns: “Perhaps this will not happen tomorrow or the day after. But it most certainly will happen – unless we make peace while we still can

Too little too late Mr. Avnery

That day you are so fearful of is undoubtedly coming insha’Allah.

The ball has started rolling now, and there is no way to stop or reverse its motion, it’s only a matter of time.

The aims and dreams of most Palestinians are not confined to the change of zionist regime or the vacuous declaration of abandonment of zionism by the Jewish-zionist occupiers, nor is it the acceptance of your pathetic pretence that YOU are making “peace” with us while throwing at us crumbs of a pathetic mini-state while YOU keep most of our beloved Homeland!للقدس رايحين … شهداء بالملايين

translates toWe march to Jerusalem, martyrs in the millionsثوره حتى النصر… حره فلسطين

translates to

Revolution until victory, Free Palestine

If I were a zionist, now, I would be preparing my suitcases, renewing my old passport and looking for a job in my original country.

Uri- a soldier in the Nakbah war (80% Palestine was occupied)

While you repeatedly condemn the “occupation” , you only condemn the occupation of Gaza and the west Bank, thus implicitly you condone the occupation of 80% of Palestine

When you call for “making peace” with the Palestinians, does it not occur to you that YOU are one of those occupiers that you always blame and denounce?Does it not occur to you Mr. Avnery that your approval of the war of aggression of 1948 is in total contradiction of your vacuous calls for “peace” since they justify a posteriori wars of conquest?

In your “peace-loving” conscience, how do you reconcile your support of the concept of keeping the loot of other people’s land and property which has been robbed from them by massacres, bombs and ethnic-cleansing?

Any call for occupiers to remain in occupied Palestine, even whitewashed as a “call for peace” is nothing else than a call to finalize the zionist conquest at the expense of a whole other nation

Mr Avnery, you and your brethren need to understand that:

Objectively, EVERY INCH of Palestine is occupiedEVERY Palestinian is a victim of the greed, arrogance and violence of your brethrenEVERY grain of sand has been buried under the sadistic brutality of your tanksEVER drop of water is drowning in the bloodbath you’ve created
Mr. Avnery, you and your brethren need to understand that:YOUR “zionist dream” has turned the lives of the indigenous people of Palestine into never-ending nightmaresUnder the cover of the “unique” suffering of the Jews, you have turned the Palestinian existence into a callously measured holocaust and slow-motion genocide

Mr. Avnery, you and your brethren need to understand that:The FULL LIBERATION of PALESTINE and the restoration of ALL our STOLEN rights is by now inevitable.

After a century of lies, terror, theft, deceit, murder and ruthless crimes, had your brethren, the zionist occupiers, shown any signs of remorse, respect or willingness to be decent guests in our beloved Homeland, our STOLEN Palestine, had they embraced with open arms the hospitable people of Palestine rather than destroying them with fire-arms; they might have had a chance to be accepted and forgiven. Not any more, as far as I am concerned. They have lost that opportunity.

and I can reassure you Mr. Avnery that I am not alone, my voice is just one amidst millions of Palestinians and millions more of Arabs and Muslims whom your brethren have vilified, dehumanized, humiliated and lied about and demeaned their faith for decades

Those millions are waiting with burning hearts and yearning souls to March to Jerusalem, can you hear them Uri?

Posted by nahida the Exiled Palestinian at 3:06:00 PM  

Uri Avnery is worried: Obama on the wrong side of history, Uri is not?


 ‘shalom initiative’.

Uri is worried, the “Only democracy in Middle East” missed the second (The first was in 1952) wonderful opportunity of Egytian tsunami to show solidarity with the Egyptian people.

Muslim Brothers, like you said, are not “Taliban-like fanatics”, they are Hamas-Like “Fanatics”  democratically elected, they are for Full Liberation,

So, be worried or be on right side of history, and follow Helen Thomas’ Honost Advise

With the fall Mubarak’s regime who played a role in the war on Gaza as well as the 2006 war on Lebanon, The region entered a new stage, and your IOF is concerned not about planed wars on Gaza and Lebanon, but about Hamas Liberating Negev and Hezbullah liberating Gallili ( BTW, my home is just 10 km from the borders).
Before yesterday, Nasralla answered your Barak:
“I tell Barak, Ashkenazi and Gantz that the Resistance might have to occupy Galilee. I tell the resistance fighters to be prepared for the day when war is imposed on Lebanon. Then, the Resistance leadership might ask you to lead the Resistance to occupy the Galilee.”
Believe him Uri, he never lied, thefore I assume here is ready, and would turn Barak’s war into an oportionity, Imad invented some new rules, that turned the art of war upside down.

SO, URI, HAVE GOOD SHELTER  OR ‘Get the hell out of Palestine’,


On the wrong side of history: Obama’s wavering on EgyptBy Uri Avnery

13 February 2011

Uri Avnery argues that US President Barack Obama should have trusted his instinct and placed the US on the right side of history by supporting the people’s revolution in Egypt, rather than give in to the “small people” – politicians, generals, “security experts”, diplomats, pundits, lobbyists, business leaders and. the hugely powerful Israel lobby.

Until the very last moment, the Israeli leadership tried to keep Hosni Mubarak in power.

It was hopeless. Even the mighty United States was impotent when faced with this tsunami of popular outrage.

In the end it settled for second best: a pro-Western military dictatorship. But will this really be the outcome?

The right instinctsWhen confronted with a new situation, Obama’s first response is generally admirable.

Then, it seems, second thoughts set in. And third. And fourth. The end result is a 180 degree turn.

When the masses started to gather in Tahrir Square, he reacted exactly like most decent people in the US and, indeed, throughout the world. There was unbounded admiration for those brave young men and women who faced the dreaded mukhabarat secret police, demanding democracy and human rights.

How could one not admire them? They were non-violent, their demands were reasonable, their actions were spontaneous, they obviously expressed the feelings of the vast majority of the people. Without any organization to speak of, without leadership, they said and did all the right things.

Such a sight is rare in history. No sans-culottes screaming for blood, no cold-minded Bolsheviks lurking in the shadows, no ayatollahs dictating their actions in the name of God.

So Obama loved it. He did not hide his feelings. He practically called on the dictator to give up and go away.

If Obama had stayed this course, the result would have been historic. From being the most hated power in the Arab world, the US would have electrified the Arab masses, the Muslim region, indeed much of the Third World. It could have been the beginning of a completely new era.

I believe that Obama sensed this. His first instincts are always right. In such a situation, a real leader – that rarest of all animals – stands out.

Enter the small people – and the Israel lobbyBut then came the second thoughts. Small people started to work on him. Politicians, generals, “security experts”, diplomats, pundits, lobbyists, business leaders, all the “experienced” people – experienced in routine affairs – started to weigh in. And, of course, the hugely powerful Israel lobby.

“Are you crazy?”, they admonished him. To forsake a dictator who happens to be our son-of-a-bitch? To tell all our client dictators around the world that we shall forsake them in their hour of need?

How naïve can you get? Democracy in an Arab country? Don’t make us laugh! We know the Arabs! You show them democracy on a platter and they would not know it from baked beans! They always need a dictator to keep them in shape! Especially these Egyptians! Ask the British!

The whole thing is really a conspiracy of the Muslim Brotherhood. Look them up on Google! They are the only alternative. It’s either Mubarak or them. They are the Egyptian Taliban, worse, the Egyptian Al-Qaeda. Help the well-meaning democrats to overthrow the regime, and before you know it you will have a second Iran, with an Egyptian Ahmadinejad on Israel’s southern border, hooking up with Hezbollah and Hamas. The dominos will begin to fall, starting with Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Faced with all these experts, Obama caved in. Again.

Of course, every single one of these arguments can easily be refuted.

Spurious argumentsLet’s start with Iran. The naïve Americans, so the story goes, forsook the Shah and his dreaded Israeli-trained secret police in order to promote democracy, but the revolution was taken over by the ayatollahs. A cruel dictatorship was replaced by an even crueller one. This is what Binyamin Netanyahu said this week, warning that the same is inevitably bound to happen in Egypt.

But the true Iranian story is quite different.

In 1951, a patriotic politician named Mohammad Mossadegh was elected in democratic elections – the first of their kind in Iran. Mossadegh, neither a communist nor even a socialist, instituted sweeping social reforms, freed the peasants and worked mightily to turn backward Iran into a modern, democratic, secular state. In order to make this possible, he nationalized the oil industry, which was owned by a rapacious British company which paid Iran miniscule royalties. Huge demonstrations in Tehran supported Mossadegh.

The British reaction was swift and decisive. Winston Churchill convinced President Dwight Eisenhower that Mossadegh’s course would lead to communism. In 1953 the CIA engineered a coup, Mossadegh was arrested and kept in isolation until his death 14 years later, the British got the oil back. The Shah, who had fled, was put back on his throne again. His reign of terror lasted until the Khomeini revolution, 26 years later.

Without this American intervention, Iran would probably have developed into a secular, liberal democracy. No Khomeini. No Ahmadinejad. No talk about nuclear bombs.

Netanyahu’s warnings of the inevitable takeover of Egypt by the fanatical Muslim Brotherhood, if democratic elections were held, sound logical, but they are similarly based on willful ignorance.

Would the Muslim Brothers take over? Are they Taliban-like fanatics?

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded 80 years ago, long before Obama and Netanyahu were born. They have settled down and matured, with a strong moderate wing, much like the moderate, democratic Islamic party that is governing Turkey so well, and which they are trying to emulate. In a democratic Egypt, they would constitute a legitimate party playing its part in the democratic process. (This, by the way, would have happened in Palestine, too, when Hamas was elected – if the Americans, under Israeli guidance, had not toppled the unity government and set Hamas on a different course.)

The majority of Egyptians are religious, but their Islam is far removed from the radical kind. There are no indications that the bulk of the people, represented by the youngsters in Tahrir Square, would tolerate a radical regime. The Islamic bogeyman is just that – a bogeyman.

Obama’s volte-faceSo what did Obama do? His moves were pathetic, to say the least.

After turning against Mubarak, he suddenly opined that he must stay in power, in order to carry out democratic reforms. As his representative, he sent to Egypt a retired diplomat whose current employer is a law firm that represents the Mubarak family (much as Bill Clinton used to send committed Jewish Zionists to “mediate” between Israel and the Palestinians.)

So the detested dictator was supposed to institute democracy, enact a new liberal constitution, work together with the very people he had thrown into prison and systematically tortured.

Mubarak’s pathetic speech on 10 February was the straw that broke the back of the Egyptian camel. It showed that he had lost contact with reality or, worse, is mentally deranged. But even an unbalanced dictator would not have made such an atrocious speech had he not believed that America was still on his side. The howls of outrage in the square while Mubarak’s recorded speech was still being aired was Egypt’s answer. That needed no interpreters.

But America had already moved. Its main instrument in Egypt is the army. It is the army that holds the key to the immediate future. When the Armed Forces Supreme Council convened on 10 February, just before that scandalous speech, and issued a “Communique No. 1”, hope was mingled with foreboding.

“Communique No. 1” is a term well known in history. It generally means that a military junta has assumed power, promising democracy, early elections, prosperity and heaven on earth. In very rare instances, the officers indeed fulfill these promises. Generally, what ensues is a military dictatorship of the worst kind.

This time, the communique said nothing at all. It just showed on live TV that they were there – all the leading generals, minus Mubarak and his stooge, Omar Suleiman.

Now they have assumed power. Quietly, without bloodshed. For the second time within 60 years.

It is worthwhile recalling the first time. After a period of turmoil against the British occupiers, a group of young officers, veterans of the 1948 Israeli-Arab war, hiding behind an elderly general, carried out a coup. The despised ruler, King Farouk, was literally sent packing. He put to sea on his yacht from Alexandria. Not a drop of blood was shed.

The people were jubilant. They loved the army and the coup. But it was a revolution from above. No crowds in Tahrir Square.

The army tried first to govern through civilian politicians. They soon lost patience with that. A charismatic young lieutenant-colonel, Gamal Abd-al-Nasser, emerged as the leader, instituted wide-ranging reforms, restored the honour of Egypt and the entire Arab world – and founded the dictatorship which expired on 11 February 2011.

Will the army follow this example, or will it do what the Turkish army has done several times: assume power and turn it over to an elected civilian government?

Much will depend on Obama. Will he support the move to democracy, as his inclination will undoubtedly suggest, or will he listen to the “experts”, Israelis included, who will urge him to rely on a military dictatorship, as American presidents have done for so long?

But the chance of the United States of America, and of Barack Obama personally, leading the world by shining statesmanship at a historic moment 19 days ago has been wasted. The beautiful words have evaporated.

For Israel there is another lesson. When the Free Officers made their revolution in 1952, in the whole of Israel only one single voice was raised (that of Haolam Hazeh, the news magazine I was editing) calling upon the Israeli government to come out in support. The government did the opposite, and a historic chance to show solidarity with the Egyptian people was lost.

Now, I am afraid, this mistake will be repeated. The tsunami is being viewed in Israel as a terrifying natural catastrophe, not as the wonderful opportunity it is.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Uri Avnery is worried: Egypt will change our lives


“Peace with the Palestinians is no longer a luxury. It is an absolute necessity. Peace now, peace quickly.’ Uri Avnery (too little too late, Mr Avnery)

Nothing but Full Liberation, Uri , never ever compare youself to the 15 year-old boys in Alexandria, Amman or Aleppo. They are natives, your are not.‘Get the hell out of Palestine’, Go back to Germany before ‘Mountains turn into valleys, islands emerge from the sea, volcanoes cover the land with lava.”

When you were a 15 year-old boy you never asked your father why he behaved like abject slaves of Nazi Zionist movement collabrating with Geman Nazi , Instead he fled his country (Germany) and the Nazi regime, immigrated to Palestine.

Instead of asking, you joined a terrorist organization, Irgun, to kill Palestine people, destroy its peaceful villages to establish a Jewish Nazi regime.

This is how your father raised you.

Four years later, 1952, you calledfor a preventive war against Egypt, After the 1956 Suez Crisis, you suggested that Israel aid Palestinians in overthrowing the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan Israel would then form a federation with the new Palestinian Jordanian state.

Are you different from Lieberman calling for the same now? not much.

Palestine was NEVER a “lost cause” , even after Anwar Sadat’s unprecedented visit to Jerusalem, and your rush to Cairo without no visa ears after your rush to Beirut, also withot a visa.

At the time while you “were feted like kings, almost expecting at any moment to be lifted onto people’s shoulders.

“The ‘Peace” you felt in the air was an illusion.

So felt many, such as that guy insisting in his “peace conspiracy”, trying to bluff palestinians, calling for a joint Fatah-Hamas statement delaring being ready to recognise and live in permanent peace with the reality of an Israel inside its borders as they were on the eve of the 1967 war, with Jerusalem an open, undivided city and the capital of two states’ and confine the Palestinians of retun to the Palestinian state.

Uri, your Zionist entity failed to notice the water rising slowly and silently behind the dam, until it burst, sweeping the illustion of possible peace with Zionism.

Yes, Uri, Egypt already changed your lives, the preventive war against Egypt, you called for in 1950’s shall only expedite the end of the so-called Israel.
Its time, to quit self-denial, and to get, the hell out of Palestine.

Uprooted Palestinian


Egypt will change our lives

A Villa in the Jungle?

5 February 2011, Uri Avnery

WE ARE in the middle of a geological event. An earthquake of epoch-making dimensions is changing the landscape of our region. Mountains turn into valleys, islands emerge from the sea, volcanoes cover the land with lava.
People are afraid of change. When it happens, they tend to deny, ignore, pretend that nothing really important is happening.

Israelis are no exception. While in neighboring Egypt earth-shattering events were taking place, Israel was absorbed with a scandal in the army high command. The Minister of Defense abhors the incumbent Chief of Staff and makes no secret of it. The presumptive new chief was exposed as a liar and his appointment canceled. These were the headlines.

But what is happening now in Egypt will change our lives.

AS USUAL, nobody foresaw it. The much-feted Mossad was taken by surprise, as was the CIA and all the other celebrated services of this kind.

Yet there should have been no surprise at all – except about the incredible force of the eruption. In the last few years, we have mentioned many times in this column that all over the Arab world, multitudes of young people are growing up with a profound contempt for their leaders, and that sooner or later this will lead to an uprising. These were not prophesies, but rather a sober analysis of probabilities.

The turmoil in Egypt was caused by economic factors: the rising cost of living, the poverty, the unemployment, the hopelessness of the educated young. But let there be no mistake: the underlying causes are far more profound. They can be summed up in one word: Palestine.

In Arab culture, nothing is more important than honor. People can suffer deprivation, but they will not stand humiliation.

Yet what every young Arab from Morocco to Oman saw daily was his leaders humiliating themselves, forsaking their Palestinian brothers in order to gain favor and money from America, collaborating with the Israeli occupation, cringing before the new colonizers. This was deeply humiliating for young people brought up on the achievements of Arab culture in times gone by and the glories of the early Caliphs.

Nowhere was this loss of honor more obvious than in Egypt, which openly collaborated with the Israeli leadership in imposing the shameful blockade on the Gaza Strip, condemning 1.5 million Arabs to malnutrition and worse. It was never just an Israeli blockade, but an Israeli-Egyptian one, lubricated by 1.5 billion US dollars every year.

I have reflected many times – out loud – how I would feel if I were a 15 year-old boy in Alexandria, Amman or Aleppo, seeing my leaders behave like abject slaves of the Americans and the Israelis, while oppressing and despoiling their own subjects. At that age, I myself joined a terrorist organization. Why would an Arab boy be different?

A dictator may be tolerated when he reflects national dignity. But a dictator who expresses national shame is a tree without roots – any strong wind can blow him over.

For me, the only question was where in the Arab world it would start. Egypt – like Tunisia – was low on my list. Yet here it is – the great Arab revolution taking place in Egypt.

THIS IS a wonder in itself. If Tunisia was a small wonder, this is a huge one.

I love the Egyptian people. True, one cannot really like 88 million individuals, but one can certainly like one people more than another. In this respect, one is allowed generalize.

The Egyptians you meet in the streets, in the homes of the intellectual elite and in the alleys of the poorest of the poor, are an incredibly patient lot. They are endowed with an irrepressible sense of humor. They are also immensely proud of the country and its 8000 years of history.

For an Israeli, used to his aggressive compatriots, the almost complete lack of aggressiveness of the Egyptians is astonishing. I vividly remember one particular scene: I was in a taxi in Cairo when it collided with another. Both drivers leapt out and started to curse each other in blood-curling terms. And then quite suddenly, both of them stopped shouting and burst into laughter.

A Westerner coming to Egypt either loves it or hates it. The moment you set your foot on Egyptian soil, time loses its tyranny. Everything becomes less urgent, everything is muddled, yet in a miraculous way things sort themselves out. Patience seems boundless. This may mislead a dictator. Because patience can end suddenly.

It’s like a faulty dam on a river. The water rises behind the dam, imperceptibly slowly and silently – but if it reaches a critical level, the dam will burst, sweeping everything before it.

MY OWN first meeting with Egypt was intoxicating. After Anwar Sadat’s unprecedented visit to Jerusalem, I rushed to Cairo. I had no visa. I shall never forget the moment I presented my Israeli passport to the stout official at the airport. He leafed through it, becoming more and more bewildered – and then he raised his head with a wide smile and said “marhaba”, welcome. At the time we were the only three Israelis in the huge city, and we were feted like kings, almost expecting at any moment to be lifted onto people’s shoulders. Peace was in the air, and the masses of Egypt loved it.

It took no more than a few months for this to change profoundly. Sadat hoped – sincerely, I believe – that he was also bringing deliverance to the Palestinians. Under intense pressure from Menachem Begin and Jimmy Carter, he agreed to a vague wording. Soon enough he learned that Begin did not dream of fulfilling this obligation. For Begin, the peace agreement with Egypt was a separate peace to enable him to intensify the war against the Palestinians.

The Egyptians – starting with the cultural elite and filtering down to the masses – never forgave this. They felt deceived. There may not be much love for the Palestinians – but betraying a poor relative is shameful in Arab tradition. Seeing Hosni Mubarak collaborating with this betrayal led many Egyptians to despise him. This contempt lies beneath everything that happened this week. Consciously or unconsciously, the millions who are shouting “Mubarak Go Away” echo this contempt.

IN EVERY revolution there is the “Yeltsin Moment”. The columns of tanks are sent into the capital to reinstate the dictatorship. At the critical moment, the masses confront the soldiers. If the soldiers refuse to shoot, the game is over. Yeltsin climbed on the tank, ElBaradei addressed the masses in al Tahrir Square. That is the moment a prudent dictator flees abroad, as did the Shah and now the Tunisian boss.

Then there is the “Berlin Moment”, when a regime crumbles and nobody in power knows what to do, and only the anonymous masses seem to know exactly what they want: they wanted the Wall to fall.

And there is the “Ceausescu moment”. The dictator stands on the balcony addressing the crowd, when suddenly from below a chorus of “Down With The Tyrant!” swells up. For a moment, the dictator is speechless, moving his lips noiselessly, then he disappears. This, in a way, happened to Mubarak, making a ridiculous speech and trying in vain to stem the tide.

IF MUBARAK is cut off from reality, Binyamin Netanyahu is no less. He and his colleagues seem unable to grasp the fateful meaning of these events for Israel.

When Egypt moves, the Arab world follows. Whatever transpires in the immediate future in Egypt – democracy or an army dictatorship – It is only a matter of (a short) time before the dictators fall all over the Arab world, and the masses will shape a new reality, without the generals.

Everything the Israeli leadership has done in the last 44 years of occupation or 63 years of its existence is becoming obsolete. We are facing a new reality. We can ignore it – insisting that we are “a villa in the jungle”, as Ehud Barak famously put it – or find our proper place in the new reality.

Peace with the Palestinians is no longer a luxury. It is an absolute necessity. Peace now, peace quickly. Peace with the Palestinians, and then peace with the democratic masses all over the Arab world, peace with the reasonable Islamic forces (like Hamas and the Muslim Brothers, who are quite different from al Qaeda), peace with the leaders who are about to emerge in Egypt and everywhere.

Paul J. Balles: Grains of sand: perspectives on roles of Israel and USA in Middle East


Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 4:35AM Gilad Atzmon

Paul J. BallesIn an article entitled “Weapons of mass deception“, I suggested that there has been too much control of the mainstream media by too few people.

The result? Much gets left out, covered up or distorted to suit special interests like those of Rupert Murdoch.

In a subsequent article, I suggested reading writers in the alternative media, a facility that has grown significantly on the internet.

As might be expected, a few knowledgeable commentators suggested that they had better choices of both websites and authors than those I offered. No doubt.

My pick of both writers and venues is based on several criteria: (1) they’re honest and reliable, (2) they often provide information unavailable in the mainstream media and (3) they focus on political, social, environmental, aesthetic or educational issues that concern me.

Thus, other readers’ different interests will naturally lead to different writers in different places.

In my article “Grains of sand: highlights from the alternative media”, I quoted a number of my favourite authors on a variety of issues coming through my lens: the establishment press, international relations, wars and threats of war, Palestine and Israel, American weaknesses and WikiLeaks.

Israel and the role of America in the Middle East

This week, I’d like to share my interest in writers who have brought important perspectives to one major issue: Israel and the role of America in the Middle East. Incidentally, six of my choice authors (three here) are Jewish.

Uri Avnery

”The country [Israel] is embracing the racist demon. After millennia as the victims of racism, it seems as if Jews here are happy to be able to do unto others what has been done to them.”

Franklin Lamb

“The 522 hour indiscriminate carnage, ‘Cast Lead’ that killed 1,417 Palestinians, mostly civilians, 352 of them children, injuring for life more than 5,300 , indicts Israel as well as those countries that continue to supply it weapons, diplomatic cover and to enforce Israel’s illegal siege on sealed Gaza.”

Debbie Menon

“There will never be peace in the Middle East unless the US, the major force which sustains Israel, withdraws its support, and Israel loses its most important and essential crutches for its survival, the money of the American people and the lives of American soldiers!”

Mike Whitney

“US foreign policy doesn’t change. It is immutable, relentless and vicious. America owns the world and demands that foreign leaders obey Washington’s directives. ‘Follow orders, or else’; that’s all one needs to know about US foreign policy.”
Jeff Blankfort

“…thanks to the unconditional backing by the US for all its crimes, and given its arsenal of nuclear weapons, I consider Israel to be the most immediate threat to the future of the planet.”

Alan Hart

“If it is the case that American presidents are frightened of provoking Israel, the conclusion would have to be that the Zionist state is a monster beyond control and that all efforts for peace are doomed to failure.”

Gilad Atzmon

“Israeli behaviour should be realized as the ultimate vulgar biblical barbarism on the verge of cannibalism. Israel is nothing but evilness for the sake of evilness. It is wickedness with no comparison.”

James Petras

“We are a people colonized and directed by a small, extremist and militarist ‘ally’ [srael] which operates through domestic proxies, who, under any other circumstance, would be openly denounced as traitors.”

Richard Falk

“We have witnessed the carnage of ‘pre-emptive war’ and ‘preventive war’ in Iraq, but we have yet to explore the moral and political imperatives of ‘pre-emptive peace’ and ‘preventive peace.’ How long must the peoples of the world wait?”

Source: http://www.redress.cc/global/pjballes20110116

Uri Avnery: Free-elections, not Iran – dangerous for Israel


 Uri is worried about this (rise of Islamic leadership in Israeli neighborhood).

Uri Avnery is on the left and a Yemeni Jew
who is the original Jew of the bible- on the right.

Uri with another Jew of the Bible
somebody called him “Father Palestine”

 Uri, look at the mirror, and listen to Helen Thomas: Zionists get the hell out of Palestine’

Posted on December 6, 2010 by rehmat1|

A recent article by the German-Israeli Jewish columnist, human-rights activist and former member of Jewish terrorist militia Irgun and Knesset MP, Uri Avnery (born 1923), title Islam is the Solution happens to be as much misleading as Zionists’ definition of anti-Semitism.

After making fun of Wikileaks (he doesn’t believe that Israel is behind the documents which are based on Israeli propaganda lies with a little sprinkle of truth), Turkey’s abandoning Ataturk and his great westernization (by electing Islamist AKP), Yassar Arafat, PLO, Christians’ part in resistance against the Jewish occupation of Palestine, Islamist Hamas and Hizbullah Islamic Revolution (Iran), Dr. Ahmadinejad (whom he calls “Iranian Hitler” who is on verge of obtaining a nuclear bomb) and Egypt’s fraud election which did not allow any Islamist candidate to win (praised by US media) – Uri comes to the conclusion: “All over the Arab, this is a real dilemma. Free elections would bring fundamentalists (Islamists) to power“.

Uri painfully admits that secular-nationalism (Arabism, Zionism, etc.) has delivered no real independence, no freedom, no economic and technological breakthrough. However, he boasts that while the Arab countries have totally failed in economic sphere – “The successful Israeli example is near at hand and increases the frustration”. Naturally, Uri prefer not to mention the US, German, British and Swiss contributions of over US$4 trillion to Israeli economy. Furthermore, Israeli daily Ha’aretz had reported on January 23, 2006: “More than 1 in 3 Israeli children live in poverty“.

“Almost all Arab countries are backward American clients and dance to the American tune. A whole generation of Arab leaders has spectacularly failed,” wrote Uri. But, he doesn’t like to give the reason behind this pathetic situation – which David Ben Gurion had called “Israel’s first defence” against Islamic forces.

“The rise of Hamas in Palestine is a direct result of this failure. Secular Palestinian nationalism has been given a try, and has failed. The Islamic revolutionaries are appealing to a people deprived of all national and human rights, with no alternative in sight,” wrote Uri.

“The Sunni Hamas (“Islamic Resistance Movement”) and the Shiite Hezbollah (“Party of God”) are becoming the models for masses of young people all over the Arab world,” admits Uri.

Personally, I don’t see any wrong with being an Islamist, if it helps in the betterment of the community, country or the Muslim Ummah. After-all, such actions are expected from the true Believers by the Creator (Allah). However, one doesn’t have to be an ‘Islamist’ to recognize “Islam is the Solution”. In fact it is people like Lauren Booth or Kevin Barrett PhD or former NATO’s director of information Dr. Murad Wilffried Hofmann or Malcolm X and others, born Jews or Christians, who are proving that truth.

At the end of his article, Uri Avnery is not ashamed to admit: “If I were responsible for Israel at this moment, I would worry about this (rise of Islamic leadership in Israeli neighborhood) much more than about the Iranian bomb“.


Click on the links below to learn more about Zionist Uri Avnery

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Israeli fascism, the joker Shlomo Avineri and the tragedy of Peace Now

>Via Redress
By Uri Avnery

21 November 2010

Uri Avnery cautions against those in Israel such as Shlomo Avineri who dismiss the increasingly potent fascism tendencies in the country and warns against appeasing racists and fascists, in the way that Peace Now is currently doing.

“A disaster!” the courtiers of the King of Hanover cried, “Seven renowned professors at Göttingen University have published a declaration of protest against you!”

That was 173 years ago. The king had suspended the liberal constitution enacted by his predecessor.

“So what,” the king replied, “Tarts, dancers and professors I can always buy.”

This story was told me to by Yeshayahu Leibowitz, who was himself a professor of half a dozen vastly different disciplines, from bio-chemistry to the philosophy of science. He held many of his colleagues in profound contempt.

He told me this story when we were talking about one professor in particular: Shlomo Avineri, who had just agreed to serve as director-general of the Foreign Ministry under Minister Yigal Alon. Alon was the author of the “Alon Plan”, which provided for the annexation of wide stretches of occupied territory.

Preposterous Shlomo Avineri under the shadow of fascism
This week, Avineri published an article under the headline “Fascism? You make me laugh!”

What made him laugh? The ridiculous (for him) argument that there exist fascist tendencies in Israel. He reminded us that fascism means the Gestapo, concentration camps and genocide. How could we forget?

Avineri is a respected professor, an expert on Hegel and Zionism. He is also a valiant warrior against “post-Zionists” and other miscreants who criticize classical Zionism.

I guess that if in 1923 somebody had told his father in the Polish town of Bielsko that in the Bavarian town of Munich an oddball with a funny little moustache was telling people about his plan to become the dictator of Germany and invade Poland, he, too, would have exclaimed: “You make me laugh!”

In those days in Germany many little “völkisch” groups were springing up with similar demands: to annul the citizenship of Jews, to drive the Jews out of their neighborhoods and to introduce oaths of allegiance to the Reich as the nation-state of the German people (including the Austrians, of course.)

At the time, these groups were laughed at. How could anyone imagine that a civilized country, the nation of Goethe, Schiller and Kant – and, indeed, Hegel – would hoist these crazies into power?

Over the next few years, many of those who had laughed found themselves in concentration camps, where they had ample time to meditate and tell themselves: if we had acted to stop the fascists in time, instead of laughing, this would not have happened.

On the day Avineri was struggling not to laugh, another un-funny item was published.

It reported that a delegation of “senior Peace Now members”, led by Director-General Yariv Oppenheimer, had met with Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon.

The occurrence of this meeting gives rise to some questions. Even more so does its aim.

Danny Ayalon captured the attention of the world when he summoned the Turkish ambassador and sat him on a low sofa, while loudly explaining to the Israeli reporters present that his intention was to humiliate Turkey.

It is difficult to probe the depth of foolishness of this infantile deed and of the man who did it. The public humiliation of a proud nation, which holds a key position in our region, set off to a long chain of events: Turkish public opinion turned against Israel, a Turkish ship sailed for Gaza and its violent interception caused a world-wide storm, Turkey is realigning itself with Iran and Syria – and the story is not over yet. True, Ayalon did not cause all this by himself, but he definitely deserves his share of the glory.

So how did it enter the minds of these “Senior Peace Now Members” to meet this man of all people, and thus bestow legitimacy on him?

And not only on him. It could be argued that Ayalon is exposed as the village idiot, so that no amount of legitimacy would stick to him. But behind Ayalon there looms the man who appointed him: Minister for Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman.

Lieberman is an international symbol of racism, a settler and defender of settlers, the principal assistant in Binyamin Netanyahu’s efforts to obstruct peace and eternalize the occupation. At this very moment he is providing Netanyahu with the pretext to object to the freeze of the settlements and torpedo the peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

Dozens of foreign ministers refuse to meet Lieberman. No Arab leader agrees to shake his hand. Egyptians loathe him, for Palestinians he is the symbol of evil. He cannot show his face in respectable international society.

Peace Now – PR agents for racist Lieberman
So, for heaven’s sake, what caused the “Senior Peace Now Members” to legitimize this person?

The topic of the meeting is even more amazing. As reported, the Peace Now people proposed “cooperation” with the Foreign Office. It would be good for you, they told their host, to distribute Peace Now material around the world, in order to show that Israel is not only a state of occupation and settlements, but also of peaceniks. That would improve the image of the state and help the Foreign Office to silence the critics.

In other words: the “senior Peace Now members” are prepared to serve as fig leaves for Netanyahu’s government and for Lieberman’s Foreign Ministry. They offer them an alibi.

The Peace Now movement enjoys a very positive reputation all over the world. People remember them for the giant protest demonstration after the Sabra and Shatila massacre. The impression is widespread that it is the sole peace movement in Israel. The world media treat it graciously, while practically ignoring all other Israeli peace forces.

This is what makes this meeting so dangerous. Many across the world will tell themselves: if Peace Now meets with Lieberman’s people and offers them cooperation, they can’t be so bad.

Thus, Peace Now is serving Lieberman as Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak are serving Netanyahu. And as Shlomo Avineri, in his time, served Yigal Alon. The King of Hanover knew what he was talking about.

How did Peace Now reach this point?

I am not against the movement. On the contrary, I appreciate very much its struggle against the settlements. True, they did not join the boycott of the products of the settlements which we started 12 years ago, but they are monitoring the construction activities in the settlements and bringing them to the attention of the world. This is an important and very laudable action.

The trouble is that the movement, which could once call hundreds of thousands onto the streets, finds it hard nowadays to mobilize even a few hundred.

When Peace Now sold its soul

This can be attributed to the general collapse of the Israeli peace movement since 2000, when Ehud Barak declared that “We have no partner for peace”. But the case of Peace Now merits special analysis.

The movement came into being in 1978, when it seemed that Menachem Begin was dragging his feet and was not responding positively enough to Anwar Sadat’s historic peace initiative. Begin, a lawyer by profession and character, haggled over every little detail, and there was a danger that the unique opportunity would be missed. The demonstrations of the young Peace Now helped to push Begin in the right direction.

The zenith of Peace Now’s success was the “demonstration of the 400 thousand” after the Sabra and Shatila massacre in the First Lebanon War. Even though the number is exaggerated, it was a huge demonstration, unique in its way, which expressed a real uprising of Israel public opinion.

But this success had a price. On the eve of the war, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin, the leaders of the Labour Party, went to see Begin and urged him to start the war. And here, lo and behold, these two appeared as the main speakers at the Peace Now protest. It was a deal: Peace Now gave the two a kosher certificate, and the Labour Party brought the (then) masses of its adherents to the square.

It reminded me of the deal made by Faust with Mephistopheles: in return for worldly success, he sold his soul.

The strategy of Peace Now was not altogether without logic.

This was explained by Tzali Reshef, who was the real leader of the movement for several decades. In 1992, when Rabin deported 415 Islamic activists to the Lebanon border, a public debate on the proper response took place in Tel Aviv. I proposed setting up protest tents opposite the Prime Minister’s Office and staying there until the deportees were allowed to return. Reshef rejected this, saying frankly: “Peace Now is addressing a large public and we must not do anything that would push them away from us. Avnery can afford to say all the right things, we don’t have this luxury.”

We indulged in this luxury, put up the tents and stayed there day and night in subzero temperatures. (It was in those very tents that Gush Shalom was born.) Throughout the years, Peace Now gradually adopted our positions, but always after a delay of months or years. Thus, they belatedly adopted the two-state solution, the need to talk with the Palestine Liberation Organization, the principle of two capitals in Jerusalem, etc.

This strategy would have been legitimate and even justified – had it proved effective. But in real life, the opposite happened: the masses left Peace Now, and the movement is now, like all of us, engaged in a desperate rearguard battle against the rising rightist tide.

And unlike Professor Avineri – I feel no inclination to laugh.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

His father’s boy: the three faces of Binyamin Netanyahu

>“Netanyahu, Barak and many other Israelis are often ‘outraged’ by FM Lieberman. I guess that Israelis grasp that their senior diplomat exposes the Israeli ploy: when Israelis talk peace — what they really mean is war with no end.” Gilad Atzmon

And here read Uri Avnery exposing the three faces of Netanyahu.

Dear Uri: look on the mirror.


His father’s boy: the three faces of Binyamin Netanyahu


By Uri Avnery

11 October 2010

Uri Avnery considers the three faces of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu: the unprincipled conman, the street-wise trickster and the advocate of Greater Israel. He concludes that while Netanyahu displays all three faces, the third is the one that represents him most.

Which is the real Netanyahu?

•Bibi the weakling, the invertebrate, who always gives in to pressure, who zigzags to the left and to the right, depending on whether the pressure comes from the US or from his coalition partners?
•The tricky Likud chief, who is afraid that Avigdor Ivett Lieberman might succeed in pushing him towards the centre and displace him as the leader of the entire right?
•Netanyahu, the man of principle, who is determined to prevent at any cost the setting up of the State of Palestine, and is therefore using every possible ruse to sabotage real negotiations?
The real Netanyahu – stand up!

Hey, wait a minute, what’s going on here? Do I see all three of them rising?

The first Netanyahu: “conman without principles”

The first Netanyahu is the one who meets the eye. A leaf in the wind. The conman without principles and with plenty of tricks, whose sole aim is to survive in power.

This Netanyahu practically invites pressure on himself.

Barack Obama pressured him, so he agreed to the settlement freeze – or the perceived settlement freeze. In order to avoid a crisis with the settlers, he promised them that after the agreed 10 months, the construction boom would be resumed with full vigour.

The settlers pressured him, and he did indeed resume the building at the appointed time, in spite of the intense pressure from Obama, who pushed for an extension of the moratorium for another two months. Why two months? Because the congressional elections take place on 2 November, and Obama desperately needs to avoid a crisis with the Jewish establishment before that. To this end, he is ready to sell Netanyahu the whole inventory – arms, money, political support, a set of guarantees about the outcome of the negotiations that have not yet even begun. Sixty days! sixty days! my kingdom for sixty days!

Netanyahu is now zigzagging between these pressures, trying to find out which is the stronger, which one to give in to, how much and when. In his dreams he probably feels like the Baron von Munchhausen, who found himself on a narrow path, with a lion behind him getting ready to spring and a crocodile in front of him opening its awesome jaws. (If I remember right, the baron ducked and the lion jumped straight into the jaws of the reptile.)

This is the great hope of Netanyahu. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) will help to deliver Obama a crushing defeat in the elections, Obama will deliver a crushing blow to the settlers, and Baron von Netanyahu will rub his hands and survive to fight another day.

Is this the real Netanyahu? For sure.

The second Netanyahu: the trickster

But the second Netanyahu is no less real. This is Tricky Bibi who is trying to out-fox Tricky Ivett [Lieberman].

Lieberman astounded the UN General Assembly, when, as the foreign minister of Israel, he addressed this august body from the rostrum.

Because our foreign minister did not rise to defend the policies of his country, as did his colourless colleagues. Quite the opposite: from the UN rostrum he vigorously attacked the policy of his own government, giving it short shrift.

The official policy of the government of Israel is to conduct direct negotiations with the Palestinian leadership, in order to achieve a final peace treaty within one year.

Nonsense, said the foreign minister of that same government. Rubbish. There is no chance at all of a peace treaty, not within a year and not within a hundred years. What’s needed is a long-term interim agreement. In other words, the continuation of the occupation without time limits.

Why did Lieberman give this performance? He was not addressing the few delegates who had remained in the UN assembly hall, but the Israeli public. He challenged Netanyahu: either dismiss me or pretend that the spittle on your face is rain.

But Netanyahu did not dismiss and did not react, except for a weak statement that Lieberman was not expressing his views. And this why? Clearly, if Netanyahu were to kick Lieberman’s party out of the government and bring in Tzipi Livni’s Kadima Party, Lieberman would do to Netanyahu what Netanyahu did to Yitzhak Rabin. He would declare him a traitor selling out the fatherland, an enemy of the settlements. His devotees would parade around with posters of Netanyahu in SS uniform or wearing a keffiyeh, [Arab head dress] while others performed arcane Kabbalah rituals to bring about his death.

Lieberman would raise the flag of the right, split the Likud and take sole possession of the entire Israeli right. He believes that this is the way to become prime minister.

Netanyahu understands this perfectly. That’s why he is restraining himself. As a man who grew up in the United States he probably remembers what Lyndon Johnson said about J. Edgar Hoover: better to have him inside the tent pissing out, then outside the tent pissing in.

And perhaps this Netanyahu – the second one – does not really object to the plan outlined by Lieberman at the UN assembly.

The foreign minister was not content with rejecting peace and bringing up the idea of the long-term interim agreement. He described the solution he has in mind. Not surprisingly, it is the electoral platform of his party, Israel Beytenu (“Israel Our Home”). In essence: Israel, the “Nation-State-Of-The-Jewish-People”, will be free of Arabs, or, translated into German, Araberrein.

But Lieberman is a humane person, and does not advocate (at least in public) ethnic cleansing. He does not propose a third Nakba (after the 1948 Palestinian catastrophe and the 1967 expulsion). No, his solution is far more creative: he will separate from Israel the Arab towns and villages along the eastern border, the so-called “triangle”, from Umm al-Fahm in the north to Kafr Kassem in the south This area, together with its inhabitants and lands, would be joined to the territory of the Palestinian Authority, and in return Israel would annex the Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

That raises, of course, several questions. First, what about the Arab concentrations in Galilee, which include dozens of villages, towns like Nazareth and Shefa Amr, and the Arab population in the mixed towns, Haifa and Acre? Lieberman does not propose to transfer them too. Nor does he propose to give up East Jerusalem, with its quarter of a million Arab residents. If that is the case, is he prepared to leave in the “Nation-State-Of-The-Jewish-People” more than three quarters of a million Arabs? Or does he dream at night, lying in his bed, of conducting ethnic cleansing after all?

A second question: to whom will he transfer the Arab towns and villages of the ‘triangle”? Without a peace treaty, there will be no Palestinian state. Instead, there will remain the Palestinian Authority, with its few small enclaves all subject to Israeli occupation. The long-term interim agreement would leave this situation, more or less, intact. Meaning that this area, now part of Israel, would become a territory under Israeli occupation. Its inhabitants would lose their status as Israeli citizens and become an occupied population, devoid of civil rights and human rights.

As far as is known, not a singe Arab leader in Israel agrees to that. Even in the past, when it seemed that Lieberman agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian state and wanted to transfer to it the Arab areas of Israel, not a single Arab leader in Israel agreed. The Arab citizens of Israel, a population approaching a million and a half, are indeed a part of the Palestinian people, but they are also a part of the Israeli population.

Netanyahu is certainly afraid of Lieberman, but can it be that he did not condemn Lieberman’s UN speech because he secretly shares his views?

In any case, this week Netanyahu announced that he is adopting Lieberman’s baby, the demand that non-Jewish (meaning Arab) people who wish to obtain Israeli citizenship swear allegiance not just to the State of Israel and its laws, as is usual, but to “Israel as a Jewish and democratic state”. This is a nonsensical and meaningless addition, solely devised to provoke the 20 per cent of Israelis who are Arabs. One might as well demand candidates for US citizenship swear allegiance to the “United States as a white Anglo-Saxon Christian and democratic nation”.

But it is quite possible that there is a third Netanyahu, who stands taller than the others.

The third Netanyahu: advocate of Greater Israel

This is the Netanyahu who always believed in a Greater Israel, and who has never given up the ideology which he suckled with his mother’s milk.

The veteran Israeli journalist Gideon Samet goes further: he believes that Binyamin Netanyahu’s main motivation is his total obedience to his old father.

Ben-Zion Netanyahu is now 100 years old, and in full possession of his mental faculties. He is a professor of history, born in Warsaw, who came to Palestine in 1920 and changed his name from Mileikowsky to Netanyahu (“God has Given”). He has always been on the extreme right-wing fringe. Ben-Zion Netanyahu spent several periods of his life in the US, where his three sons grew up. When in 1947 the UN General Assembly adopted the plan to partition Palestine between a Jewish state and an Arab state, father Netanyahu signed a petition, published in the New York Times, condemning the resolution in the strongest terms. Returning to Israel, he was not accepted into the new Freedom Party (the forerunner of Likud), because his views were too extreme even for Menachem Begin’s tastes. He claims that he was barred from a professorship in the Hebrew University because of his opinions, and his bitterness about this poisoned the atmosphere at home.

The professor’s special field is Spanish Jewry, with the emphasis on the Spanish Inquisition. He condemns the Jews who were baptized (the Marranos) and says that the great majority of them were eager to be assimilated into Christian Spanish society, contrary to the official heroic myth, which says that they continued to practise the religion of their forefathers in secret.

When Netanyahu the son transferred a part of Hebron to the Palestinian Authority, his father rebuked him and stated publicly that he was unfit for the job of prime minister, fit at most to serve as foreign minister. But the son made a huge effort to remain true to his father’s views, and that is the main motivation for his policy. According to Samet, he would not dare to face his father and tell him that he had given away parts of Eretz Israel.

I tend to accept this version. Netanyahu will never agree to be responsible for the establishment of the state of Palestine, will never conduct serious peace negotiations – unless under extreme duress. That is all there is to it, everything else is hollow talk.

If the real Netanyahu were called to stand up, all three, and perhaps a few more, would rise. But the third one is the most real.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian



February 8, 2010 at 9:27 am (Israel, Peace)
A Four-Letter WordBy Uri Avnery
MANY IMPORTANT struggles in Israel are calling out to people of conscience. Among others (in random order):

The struggle for preserving the environment and the future of the planet.

The struggle for democracy against fascist trends.
The struggle for human rights and civil rights.
The feminist struggle.
The struggle for the rights of gays and lesbians.
The struggle for social justice and social solidarity.
The struggle for equal rights for Israel’s Arab citizens.
The struggle against the discrimination of Oriental Jews.
The struggle for the separation of religion and state.
The struggle for animal rights.
Etc. etc. etc.

What do all these causes have in common?

All of them belong to the liberal, “progressive” world view.

Each and every one of them deserves full-hearted devotion, especially of young people.
But after all, all of them serve today as substitutes for the main battle – the struggle for peace with the Palestinian people.

THERE IS a danger that all these struggles will become something like “cities of refuge” for young idealists, who desire to devote themselves to a noble cause, but have no desire to take part in the main struggle.

Since every one of these struggles is indeed important and is for a good cause, no one can argue with these activists. Scores of organizations are now active in these fields, and thousands of wonderful people – male and female, old and young – are devoting themselves to these causes. I, too, would willingly join every one of them, were it not – – –

Were it not for the fact that all of them – all together and each of them separately – are now draining the life out of the struggle for peace. As I see it, peace stands above all other aims, not least because the success of all other struggles depends on the outcome of this fight.

The unending war creates a reality of occupation and oppression, of death and destruction, brutality and cruelty, moral degeneration and general bestiality. Can any ideal be realized in this situation? Can feminism, for example, achieve its aims in a country that is in the throes of an unbridled chauvinist militarism? Can animals be saved from torture when the torture of human beings is routine? Can rivers and forests, birds and leopards be saved when residential quarters are bombed and shelled with white phosphorus?

THE MAIN question is, of course, why people of conscience are running away from the vision of peace.

This is a fact: peace has become a four-letter word. (In Hebrew, the word for peace, shalom, indeed consists of four letters.) A decent person does not want to be seen in its company. It should not be uttered in polite society.

People do verbal exercises, almost acrobatics, to explore the range of circumlocutions for the word. Politicians speak about “the end of the conflict”, “permanent status”, “political settlement”, just to avoid the taboo term.

First of all, the word “peace” has been exploited so many times that it has almost become meaningless. It has been misused so often that it has been worn out. To paraphrase the classic sentence of the British philosopher, Dr. Samuel Johnson: “Peace is the last refuge of a scoundrel”. Or, to repeat the slogan of the evil empire in George Orwell’s 1984: “War is Peace”.
The hope for peace has been raised and dashed to pieces so many times that the hope itself now arouses suspicion and fear. What has happened to the greatest hope of all, the Oslo agreement and the historic handshake of 1993? What has happened to the triumphal journey of Ehud Barak to Camp David in 2000? One cannot demand from ordinary people that they find out what really happened there, and who is to blame. They see only the plain facts: we hoped for peace, we got war.

Things have come to the point where even peace movements are afraid to mention the word in their political statements. They, too, look for synonyms.

It is now generally accepted that one should not approach young people with talk about peace. God forbid. They are convinced that war is a permanent condition, that peace is an illusion, nothing but an empty phrase of old. They believe that they are condemned, they and their children and their children’s children (if they remain here), to go to war again and again, till the end of time. They do not want to waste their energies on this peace nonsense. Better to save the last leopards in the Judean desert or the eagles on the Golan Heights than to search for the doves of peace, which they have never seen.

Leftists are proud that the solution of “Two States for Two peoples”, once the vision of a handful of crazies, has now become a worldwide consensus. A huge victory, indeed. But it is trumped by the success of the right in turning “We Have No Partner For Peace” into a national credo.
In modern language: peace is Out, all the rest is In.

THIS WEEK the journalist Gideon Levy remarked on a TV talk show that in the present Knesset there is no longer a single Jewish member for whom peace is the No. 1 objective.

Some people mention in this context the new member of the Meretz faction, Nitzan Horowitz. For years he served as a TV foreign affairs commentator and infected the viewers with his enthusiasm for every struggle for peace and freedom throughout the world. His emotional style and his tendency to identify with the underdog have earned him the love of the audience.
But since entering parliament, his flame seems to have gone out. Now he is conducting a noisy fight against the price war among the book stores. So what about peace? What about the occupation? Silence, please.

That is true for his entire Meretz faction, which, in its heyday, served as the vanguard of the Zionist peace camp in the Knesset. Since then, things have changed for the worse. In order to regain some of their strength, they ignore the matter of peace as far as humanly possible. When there is no way out, they mention it perfunctorily, like a Jew kissing the Mezuzah or a Christian crossing himself – and hurry on.

It’s an interesting story. When Shulamit Aloni founded the party in 1973, on the eve of the Yom Kippur war, she was known mainly as a civil rights activist. She was especially engaged in the struggle for women’s rights and against religious coercion. Peace was a secondary aim on her agenda. But as the leader of Meretz, she gradually became convinced that none of her aims could be realized in an atmosphere of war, and peace became central to her views. When the party grew, it became the leading Zionist peace faction.

In recent years, the process has gone backwards, like a video film in reverse. Peace was pushed from the center of the Meretz agenda and has almost disappeared. Meretz has become again a party for civil rights, while going down from 12 Knesset seats to a mere three.
THE ISRAELI right, which is financed by right-wing American billionaires, both Jews and Christian evangelicals, this week launched an all-out attack against the liberal New Israel Fund, which donates generously to all the struggles mentioned above.

Honest disclosure: Gush Shalom has never received a cent from it. The fund has avoided peace movements like the plague. But that has not saved it. The rightists persecute it. Even if one deals “only” with human rights, one cannot escape this lot. The city of refuge offers no safety.

THE CAUSE of peace will inevitably return to center stage because it will decide our destiny – as individuals and as a state. There is no escape.

Of course, none of the struggles for the other causes should be given up, even though the fight for ending the occupation and achieving peace must head all others.

I am looking forward to the day when the organizations engaged in all these struggles will unite their wonderful activists, their enthusiasm, talents and courage, and especially their ability to devote themselves to an idea – into one single force fighting for the Other Israel, whose spearhead is the fight for peace. In one great, united movement, the various causes will complement and feed each other.

Together they will conduct the decisive campaign: the struggle for the Second Israeli Republic.


River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

Federation? Why not? – Uri Avnery

Published Sunday 22/11/2009 (updated) 23/11/2009 16:18

Three days mark the 5th anniversary of the murder of Yasser Arafat, and bring back to me our last conversation at his Ramallah compound, a few weeks before his death.

It was he who brought up the idea of a threefold federation – Israel, Palestine and Jordan. “And perhaps Lebanon, too. Why not?” – the same as he did at our very first meeting, in Beirut, July 1982, in the middle of the war. He mentioned Benelux, the pact between Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg that predated the European Union.

Lately, the term “federation” has come into fashion again. Some people believe that it can serve as a kind of compromise between the “two-state solution,” now a world-wide consensus, and the “one-state solution” that is popular in some radical circles. “Federation” sounds like a miracle: there will be both “two states for two peoples” and a single entity. Two in one, one in two.

The word “federation” does not frighten me. On the contrary, I was already using it in this context 52 years ago.

On 2 June 1957, my magazine, Haolam Hazeh, published the first detailed plan for an independent Palestinian state that would come into being next to Israel. The West Bank was then under Jordanian occupation and the Gaza Strip under Egyptian occupation. I proposed helping the Palestinians get rid of the occupiers. According to the plan, the two states, the Israeli and the Palestinian, would then establish a federation. I thought that its proper name should be “the Jordan Union.”

A year later, on 1 September 1958, there appeared a document called “the Hebrew Manifesto.” I am proud of my part in its composition. It was a comprehensive plan for a fundamental change of the state of Israel in all its aspects – a kind of complete overhaul. In its readiness to re-examine the fundamentals of the state and in the depth of the thinking involved, it has no parallel from the founding of Israel to this very day. Among its authors were Nathan Yellin-Mor, the ex-chief of the Stern Group, Boaz Evron, Amos Kenan and several others.

I was responsible for the chapter on Israeli-Arab peace. It proposed that a sovereign Palestinian state would be set up next to Israel, and that the two states would establish a federation, which would gradually assume more and more jurisdiction. I had to invent a Hebrew word to replace the foreign term “federation,” “Ugda” (grouping), and suggested that it should be called “the Jordan Federation” – “Ugdat Ha’Yarden” in Hebrew and “Ittihad Al-Urdun” in Arabic. (To my sorrow, this use of the term “Ugda” did not take root. Instead, the army adopted it for a division, which is a grouping of regiments or brigades.)

On the morrow of the Six-Day War, after which the entire country between the Mediterranean and the Jordan was under control of the Israeli army, a new political movement called the “Israel-Palestine Federation” called for the immediate creation of a Palestinian state next to Israel. The founders were, more or less, the same people who had composed the “Hebrew Manifesto.”

When this historic opportunity was missed and with the occupation becoming gradually more and more oppressive, I abandoned the use of the term federation. I sensed that it frightened both parties. Israelis were afraid that the word covered a plot to establish a bi-national state, an idea that is rejected by the overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis. Palestinians were afraid that it would serve as a disguise for a permanent Israeli occupation.

It should be remembered that the original partition plan adopted by the UN General Assembly on 29 November 1947, did envision a kind of federation, without using the term. It provided for the establishment of a Jewish state and an Arab state, and a separate entity of Jerusalem, administered by the UN. All these entities were to be parts of an economic union that would cover customs, the currency, railways, post, ports, airports and more. This would have, in practice, amounted to a federation.

The main problem with the word “federation” is that it has no agreed and binding definition. In different parts of the world, it describes wildly different regimes. The same is true for “confederacy.”

No two countries in the world resemble each other completely, and no two federations are the same. Every state and every federation has been shaped by its particular historical development and specific circumstances, and reflects the people that created it.

The word “federation” is derived from the Latin “foedus,” treaty. Basically, a federation is a pact between different states which decide to unite on agreed terms. The USA is a federation, and so is Russia. What do the two have in common?

The United States is, theoretically, a voluntary association of states. The states have many rights, but the federation is headed by a single president with immense powers. In practice, this is one state. When in 1860 the Southern states tried to secede and set up a “confederacy” of their own, the North crushed the “rebellion” in a brutal civil war. Every morning, millions of pupils in the US swear allegiance to the flag and to “One Nation Under God.”

Russia, too, is officially a federation, but their use of the term has a very different content. Moscow appoints the governors of the provinces, and Vladimir Putin rules the country as a personal fief. When Chechnya tried to secede from the “Russian Federation,” it was crushed even more brutally than the confederacy in the American Civil War. (This does not hinder Putin from supporting two seceding provinces of neighboring Georgia.)

Germany defines itself as a “federal republic” (“Bundesrepublik”). It is composed of “Länder” that enjoy a large measure of autonomy. Switzerland calls itself a confederation in French and Italian (“Eidgenossenschaft” or “Oath Association” in German) and its cantons enjoy their autonomy. But it is also a very unified country.

It is generally supposed that a “federation” is a tighter association, while a “confederacy” is a looser one. But in reality, these differences are very blurred. It seems that Americans and Russians, Germans and Swiss, identify themselves first of all with their united state, not with their own particular province (except for the Bavarians, of course).

The new Europe is for all practical purposes a confederacy, but its founders did not name it thus. They chose the less definite “European Union.” Why? Perhaps they thought that terms like “federation” and “confederacy” were outdated. Perhaps they considered such terms too binding. The term “union” does not commit its members to anything specific, and they can fill it with whatever content they all agree on and change it from time to time. If the “Lisbon agreement” is finally ratified, the union will change again.

It makes no sense, therefore, to discuss the idea of an Israeli-Palestinian “federation” in general terms, without defining right from the beginning what is meant by this. The same word, used by different people, can express completely different and even contradictory intentions.

For example: I recently saw a plan for a federation here in which every person would have the right to settle anywhere in either state while holding the citizenship of one of them. I can hardly imagine that many Israelis or Palestinians would embrace that. The Israelis would be afraid that the Arabs would soon constitute the majority within Israel, and the Palestinians would worry that Israeli settlers would take possession of every hilltop between the sea and the Jordan.

In any discussion of federation, the matter of immigration looms large as an ominous bone of contention. Would millions of Palestinian refugees be allowed to return to Israeli territory? Would millions of Jewish immigrants be allowed to submerge the state of Palestine?

The same is true for the matter of residence. Could a citizen of Palestine settle in Haifa, and an Israeli citizen in Nablus, as a Pole can now settle in France, a New Yorker in Miami, an inhabitant of canton Zurich in canton Uri?

Each one of us who considers the idea of federation must decide what he or she wants. To draw up a beautiful plan on paper, which has no chance at all of being realized because it ignores the aspirations of both “partners” – or to think in practical terms about real options?

In practice, a federation can come about only on the basis of a free agreement between the two parties. This means that it can be realized only if both Israelis and Palestinians consider it as advantageous to themselves and compatible with their national aspirations.

In my opinion, a practical way to realize the idea could look like this:

Stage One: A sovereign Palestinian state must come into being. This must precede everything else. The occupation must end and Israel must withdraw to the Green Line (with possible mutually agreed swaps of territory). That goes for Jerusalem, too.

Stage Two: The two states establish a pattern of fair relations between them and get used to living side by side. There will be a need for real steps toward reconciliation and the healing of the wounds of the past. (for example, the creation of a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” on the South African model). On the practical level, fair arrangements of matters like movement between the two states, the division of water resources, etc., are put into place.

Stage Three: The two states start negotiations for the establishment of joint institutions. For example, the opening of the border between them for the free movement of people and goods, an economic union, a joint currency, a customs envelope, the use of ports and airports, coordination of foreign relations, and so on. There will be no automatic right for citizens of one state to settle in the other. Each state will decide for itself on its immigration policy.

The two parties can jointly decide whether to invite Jordan as a third partner to the proposed treaty.

Such a negotiation can succeed only if the population in each of the partner states is convinced that the partnership will bring it positive benefits. Since Israel is the stronger economically and technologically, it must be ready to make generous proposals.

Stage Four: The more trust between the parties develops, the easier it will be to deepen the partnership and to widen the powers of the joint institutions.

Perhaps, at this stage, conditions may be ripe for the founding of a wider association of the entire region, on the lines of the European Union. Such an association may include the Arab states, Israel, Turkey and Iran. The name I suggested for it in the past was “the Semitic Union.” (Turks and Iranians are not linguistically “Semitic” nations, but Islam is a Semitic religion and plays a major role in their culture.)

This is a vision for the future, and it can be realized. To paraphrase Barack Obama’s slogan, even if it has lost some of its luster: Yes, we can.

The author is an Israeli writer and founder of the Gush Shalom peace movement. A member of the militant Zionist Irgun movement as a teenager, Avnery served in Israel’s Knesset from 1965-74 and 1979-81.

Uri Avnery Plishing Abbas: Abbas betrayed. And the traitor is Barack Obama.


He was an American Palestinian who rejected violence; he believed in America and joined its army; where he was subjected to the worst humilation, discrimination, humiliation and blackmailing; desperate as all doors were slammed in his face, he did what he did in this tragic ending with unknown consequences. He is president Mahmoud Abbas.

Line in the Sand

Uri Avnery’s Column


MAHMOUD ABBAS is fed up. The day before yesterday he withdrew his candidacy for the coming presidential election in the Palestinian Authority.

I understand him.

He feels betrayed. And the traitor is Barack Obama.

A YEAR ago, when Obama was elected, he aroused high hopes in the Muslim world, among the Palestinian people as well as in the Israeli peace camp.

At long last an American president who understood that he had to put an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not only for the sake of the two peoples, but mainly for the US national interests. This conflict is largely responsible for the tidal waves of anti-American hatred that sweep the Muslim masses from ocean to ocean.

Everybody believed that a new era had begun. Instead of the Clash of Civilizations, the Axis of Evil and all the other idiotic but fateful slogans of the Bush era, a new approach of understanding and reconciliation, mutual respect and practical solutions.

Nobody expected Obama to exchange the unconditional pro-Israeli line for a one-sided pro-Palestinian attitude. But everybody thought that the US would henceforth adopt a more even-handed approach and push the two sides towards the Two-State Solution. And, no less important, that the continuous stream of hypocritical and sanctimonious blabbering would be displaced by a determined, vigorous, non-provocative but purposeful policy.

As high as the hopes were then, so deep is the disappointment now. Nothing of all these has come about. Worse: the Obama administration has shown by its actions and omissions that it is not really different from the administration of George W. Bush.

FROM THE first moment it was clear that the decisive test would come in the battle of the settlements.

It may seem that this is a marginal matter. If peace is to be achieved within two years, as Obama’s people assure us, why worry about another few houses in the settlements that will be dismantled anyway? So there will be a few thousand settlers more to resettle. Big deal.

But the freezing of the settlements has an importance far beyond its practical effect. To return to the metaphor of the Palestinian lawyer: “We are negotiating the division of a pizza, and in the meantime, Israel is eating the pizza.”

The American insistence on freezing the settlements in the entire West Bank and East Jerusalem was the flag of Obama’s new policy. As in a Western movie, Obama drew a line in the sand and declared: up to here and no further! A real cowboy cannot withdraw from such a line without being seen as yellow.

That is precisely what has now happened. Obama has erased the line he himself drew in the sand. He has given up the clear demand for a total freeze. Binyamin Netanyahu and his people announced proudly – and loudly – that a compromise had been reached, not, God forbid, with the Palestinians (who are they?) but with the Americans. They have allowed Netanyahu to build here and build there, for the sake of “Normal Life”, “Natural Increase”, “Completing Unfinished Projects” and other transparent pretexts of this kind. There will not be, of course, any restrictions in Jerusalem, the Undivided Eternal Capital of Israel. In short, the settlement activity will continue in full swing.

To add insult to injury, Hillary Clinton troubled herself to come to Jerusalem in person in order to shower Netanyahu with unctuous flattery. There is no precedent to the sacrifices he is making for peace, she fawned.

That was too much even for Abbas, whose patience and self-restraint are legendary. He has drawn the consequences.

“TO UNDERSTAND all is to forgive all,” the French say. But in this case, some things are hard to forgive.

Certainly, one can understand Obama. He is engaged in a fight for his political life on the social front, the battle for health insurance. Unemployment continues to rise. The news from Iraq is bad, Afghanistan is quickly turning into a second Vietnam. Even before the award ceremony, the Nobel Peace Prize looks like a joke.

Perhaps he feels that the time is not ripe for provoking the almighty pro-Israel lobby. He is a politician, and politics is the art of the possible. It would be possible to forgive him for this, if he admitted frankly that he is unable to realize his good intentions in this area for the time being.

But it is impossible to forgive what is actually happening. Not the scandalous American treatment of the Goldstone report. Not the loathsome behavior of Hillary in Jerusalem. Not the mendacious talk about the “restraint” of the settlement activities. The more so as all this goes on with total disregard of the Palestinians, as if they were merely extras in a musical.

Not only has Obama given up his claim to a complete change in US policy, but he is actually continuing the policy of Bush. And since Obama pretends to be the opposite of Bush, this is double treachery.

Abbas reacted with the only weapon he has at his command: the announcement that he will leave public life.

THE AMERICAN policy in the “Wider Middle East” can be compared to a recipe in a cookbook: “Take five eggs, mix with flour and sugar…

In real life: Take a local notable, give him the paraphernalia of government, conduct “free elections”, train his security forces, turn him into a subcontractor.

This is not an original recipe. Many colonial and occupation regimes have used it in the past. What is so special about its use by the Americans is the “democratic” props for the play. Even if a cynical world does not believe a word of it, there is the audience back home to think about.

That is how it was done in the past in Vietnam. How Hamid Karzai was chosen in Afghanistan and Nouri Maliki in Iraq. How Fouad Siniora has been kept in Lebanon. How Muhammad Dahlan was to be installed in the Gaza Strip (but was at the decisive moment forestalled by Hamas.) In most of the Arab countries, there is no need for this recipe, since the established regimes already satisfy the requirements.

Abbas was supposed to fill this role. He bears the title of President, he was elected fairly, an American general is training his security forces. True, in the following parliamentary elections his party was soundly beaten, but the Americans just ignored the results and the Israelis imprisoned the undesirable Parliamentarians. The show must go on.

BUT ABBAS is not satisfied with being the egg in the American recipe.

I first met him 26 years ago. After the first Lebanon War, when we (Matti Peled, Ya’acov Arnon and I) went to Tunis to meet Yasser Arafat, we saw Abbas first. That was the case every time we came to Tunis after that. Peace with Israel was the “desk” of Abbas.

Conversations with him were always to the point. We did not become friends, as with Arafat. The two were of very different temperament. Arafat was an extrovert, a warm person who liked personal gestures and physical contact with the people he talked with. Abbas is a self-contained introvert who prefers to keep people at a distance.

From the political point of view, there is no real difference. Abbas is continuing the line laid down by Arafat in 1974 (I would say in 1958): a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. The difference is in the method. Arafat believed in his ability to influence Israeli public opinion. Abbas limits himself to dealings with rulers. Arafat believed that he had to keep in his arsenal all possible means of struggle: negotiations, diplomatic activity, armed struggle, public relations, devious maneuvers. Abbas puts everything in one basket: peace negotiations.

Abbas does not want to become a Palestinian Marshal Petain. He does not want to head a local Vichy regime. He knows that he is on a slippery slope and has decided to stop before it is too late.

I think, therefore, that his intention to leave the stage is serious. I believe his assertion that it is not just a bargaining ploy. He may change his decision, but only if he is convinced that the rules of the game have changed.

OBAMA WAS completely surprised. That has never happened before: an American client, totally dependent on Washington, suddenly rebels and poses conditions. That is exactly what Abbas has done now, when he recognized that Obama is unwilling to fulfill the most basic condition: to freeze the settlements.

From the American point of view, there is no replacement. There are certainly some capable people in the Palestinian leadership, as well as corrupt ones and collaborators. But there is no one who is capable of rallying around him all the West Bank population. The first name that comes up is always Marwan Barghouti, but he is in prison and the Israeli government has already announced that he will not be released even if elected. Also, it is not clear whether he is willing to play that role in the present conditions. Without Abbas, the entire American recipe comes apart.

Netanyahu, too, was utterly surprised. He wants phony negotiations, devoid of substance, as a camouflage for the deepening of the occupation and enlarging of the settlements. A “Peace process” as a substitute for peace. Without a recognized Palestinian leader, with whom can he “negotiate”?

In Jerusalem, there is still hope that Abbas’ announcement is merely a ploy, that it would be enough to throw him some crumbs in order to change his mind. It seems that they do not really know the man. His self-respect will not allow him to go back, unless Obama awards him a serious political achievement.

BLANKFORT: On Rationalizing Israel’s Dispossession of the Palestinians


September 15, 2009

by Jeff Blankfort – Dissident Voice – 5 September 2009

nakba2 copy

Hello Uri,

I have just read your response to critics of your opposition to boycotting Israel and, having long ago realized the limits of your activism and worldview, it held no surprises. You have quite clearly invested too much time and energy over the years in rationalizing Israel’s dispossession of the Palestinians from their homeland to acknowledge the injustice that was not only inherent but required for Israel’s creation. The passage of time does not erase that injustice no matter how many times you or others invoke the Nazi holocaust. The die for establishing a Jewish state displacing the Palestinians from their homes and villages was cast well before Hitler came to power so that issue should have no place in this argument.

The arguments against establishing a Jewish state in Palestine raised by anti-Zionist and non-Zionist Jews going back to the early years of the last century were well known and all have been proved correct. So it should not be a matter of surprise that Israel’s legitimacy has not been accepted by the Palestinians and the other peoples of the region. It was advertised by Zionists worldwide as a colonial settler enterprise with pride, in fact, until such terminology fell out of favor. That it was established at a time when the rest of the world was engaged in a period of decolonization was even a further guarantee of its rejection and had it not been for the influence of its supporters in the US and Europe and the arms that flowed from that support, Israel, like French Algeria, would have become another episode in history. (And it is noteworthy that it was Israel’s support for the French against the Algerian resistance that led to France being Israel’s chief supplier of weaponry until 1967).

You are also well aware that to maintain Israel as the Sparta of the Middle East, the “Pro-Israel Lobby” has long held the US Congress in thrall, strangling what little is left of American democracy. Do you not recall writing how one president after another tried to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict and how each one was forced by The Lobby to retire from the field defeated? And with each defeat, the theft of Palestinian land and the growth of the settlements continued. Who has paid the price for that?

As you have already assumed, I am against the existence of the state of Israel or a Jewish state by any other name which is based on the notion that a Jew from anywhere in the world has more of a right to live in what most of the world knew and accepted as Palestine than a Palestinian Arab who was born there or her or his family members. If that is not both immoral and racist, we need new definitions for those words. And yet you, apparently, do not find it so and reject the opinions of those who do. (The notion that Israel or any country can be a homeland for a person not born there and who cannot trace a single relative that was born there is but another example of how Zionists have twisted the language to justify the unjust.)

You desperation for an argument against the idea of a single state becomes apparent when you write that the French and the Germans did not agree to live together. Do you really believe there is any comparison to be made between the two situations. Are the French sitting on German land or vice versa?

I continue to be mystified at your continuing efforts to separate the settlers from those Jews living within the Green Line as if the majority of those in Israel proper are not as responsible for electing a series of professional killers as their prime ministers year after year, all of whom have expanded the settlements. There hasn’t been a single poll of Israeli Jews that I have seen going back to 1988, in the early days of the first intifada, where half of those polled did not call for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza. How many settlers were there in 1988?

In your wonderful democracy, every able bodied Jewish man or woman, with the exception of the chassdim, has served as an occupier in the West Bank or Gaza for the past 42 years. Are they not culpable? Yesterday, I watched on Al-Jazeera as Israeli soldiers fired waves of tear gas and some smelly green liquid on non-violent Palestinians who were marching to demonstrate against the steel fence that cuts through their land at Ni’ilin and who then began targeting the Al-Jazeera reporter. Are we expected to embrace these young thugs wearing an Israeli uniform? Are those who hate them to be condemned and not the thugs and those who sent them there?

You repeatedly use the word “peace” but not once do you use the word “justice.” And that is what separates you and your fellow Zionists from the Palestinians and those who genuinely support them. The occupation bothers your conscience, your sense of identity as an Israeli, but how much does it affect your life? Ending the occupation no matter how it is arranged will bring you peace of mind and time to finish your memoirs. Now, try if you can,and imagine yourself as a Palestinian who has been under an Israeli jackboot all of his or her life. Would you be simply looking for peace, an absence of that Israeli jackboot, or would you be seeking and demanding justice?

Your conclusion expresses your confusion. You write that you want “Israel to be a state belonging to all its citizens, without distinction of ethnic origin, gender,religion or language; with completely equal rights for all,” yet you assume there will be a “Hebrew-speaking majority” that will allow its “Arab-speaking citizens… to cherish their close ties with their Palestinian brothers and sisters…” If there is no distinction between one citizen and another, Jewish or Arab, how can you assume that the majority will continue to be Hebrew-speaking (or are you allowing for the possibility that Israel’s Palestinian Arab population which already is largely bi-lingual will become the majority at which point Israel will no longer be a Jewish state?). If that is so, perhaps there is hope for you yet.

Jeff Blankfort

LINK: http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/09/on-rationalizing-israels-dispossession-of-the-palestinians/

Related articles:
AVNERY, Uri: “The boycott revisited”, Dissident Voice, 5 September 2009

Previous exchange between Uri Avnery and Jeff Blankfort
BLANKFORT, Jeff: Response to Avnery on boycott issue, Dissident Voice, 30 August 2009
AVNERY, Uri: Tutu’s prayer , Dissident Voice, 29 August 2009

%d bloggers like this: